Conclusions and recommendations
The 2013 revisions to Part P
1. We
found some of the arguments that the Government advanced on 18
December 2012, to justify narrowing the scope of Part P, to lack
evidence and therefore to be unconvincing.
(Paragraph 11)
2. We recommend that
when the Government reviews the operation of Part P in 2015 that,
as well as the effects on safety and the burden on business and
local government, it assess the impact that making the 2013 changes
has had on public awareness of Part P and on the understanding
that (i) those carrying out DIY and large and small contractors
have of what is and what is not notifiable for the purpose of
building control and (ii) all work is still subject to compliance
with relevant standards. (Paragraph 13)
3. In order to allow us
to review the outcome of the 2015 review of Part P, it would assist
us if in response to this report the Minister could supply the
following. First, the Department's timetable for carrying out
the work and confirmation that the work will be completed and
passed to us by the end of February 2015, to allow us to consider
it and, if necessary, take evidence and report before the end
of the parliament. Second, it would be of assistance to know:
(i) against what criteria Part P will be reviewed (including those
we have suggested in this report), (ii) who will carry out the
review, (iii) how the evidence will be collected and (iv) the
degree of independence in the process. (Paragraph 15)
UK Accreditation Service review
4. We cannot see any
convincing reason why results of the UK Accreditation Service
review of the competent persons schemes should not be published
in full and indeed any reticence or withholding of the results
risks being counter-productive and interpreted as screening the
operation of the Part P competent persons schemes from scrutiny
and criticism. We recommend that the results of the UK Accreditation
Service review of the Part P competent persons scheme operators
due in June 2014 be published in full. (Paragraph 17)
5. We welcome the UKAS
review and when it produces its findings we shall pay close attention
to what it reports on competence. It will, understandably, measure
the operation of the system against the rules set by government.
We would therefore expect it to focus on the competence of the
qualified supervisor rather than directly on that of the electrician
on the doorstep. The concerns put to us go to the competence of
the electrician on the doorstep and whether the qualified supervisor
ensures such competence, which is a question we examine later
in this report. (Paragraph 21)
Competent persons schemes
6. In our view the Government
has until 2015 to show that the competent persons scheme model
can work effectively for domestic electrical installation. We
emphasise that it is for the Government—not the competent
persons scheme operators or local authorities—to ensure
the effective and consistent operation of Part P. This Government
and its predecessors have favoured the competent persons model
for the implementation of building control compliance over a mandatory
requirement to use a qualified electrician. The Government has
to demonstrate that its preferred model can match a mandatory
model. (Paragraph 23)
Qualifications
7. We recommend that
the Government change the terms of the competent persons schemes
for Part P to require by a specified date that all those carrying
out domestic electrical work have a qualification equivalent to
NVQ, Level III and to have completed successfully a significant
period of supervised on the job training for the work they undertake,
which is notifiable under Part P. Our aim is to ensure that all
work notifiable for the purposes of Part P will have to be carried
out by a suitable qualified person. (Paragraph 32)
8. In our view a requirement
for those carrying out notifiable domestic electrical work to
have a qualification equivalent to NVQ, Level III and to have
completed successfully a significant period of supervised on the
job training would have additional benefits. It could feature
in a campaign to raise public awareness as a guarantee of an assured
standard by the person carrying out the electrical work and also
in the longer term reduce the need for vigorous enforcement as
the quality of work improved.
(Paragraph 33)
Qualified supervisor
9. We recommend that
all qualified supervisors—not just those new to the profession
or moving within the profession—be required to meet the
standards, including qualifications, set out in the Building Regulations:
Competent Person Self-Certification Schemes—Conditions of
Authorisation from 6 June 2012 within the next 10 years. (Paragraph
38)
10. We recommend that
there should be a limit on the maximum number of transactions
that a single qualified supervisor/competent person can effectively
review each year. The purpose of our recommendation is to increase
the time that a qualified supervisor has to review the work carried
out by those who are not competent persons for the purpose of
a Part P scheme. We do not specify a ratio. Instead, the Government
and the competent persons scheme operators should agree what is
a reasonable number given the obvious current imbalance. They
could, for example, define what a reasonable audit process would
be, which would give a number of audits and with a given time
per audit that would define reasonable numbers. (Paragraph 40)
Conclusions on competent persons schemes
11. In our view it is
not acceptable to say that, because enforcement is poor, improvements
cannot be made to the Part P competent persons schemes. We conclude
that the Part P competent persons schemes need to change. All
those carrying out domestic electrical work should be brought
up to the competency level of those who meet the 2012 requirements
for a qualified supervisor. When this is achieved the need for
qualified supervisors will reduce. We recognise that such a change
will take time and we propose that this adjustment be made over
a five year period. At the end of this period any person carrying
out domestic electrical work would have to be certified competent,
which would mean that they were qualified, trained and experienced.
At the moment the scheme has the effect of branding as competent
some who are plainly incompetent and in the process undermining
the operation of competent persons schemes. Pending the full implementation
there needs to be an end to the 'grandfather' rights enjoyed by
those qualified supervisors who came into a scheme before 2013
and a limit on the number of notifications that a single qualified
supervisor can authorise in a year. (Paragraph 42)
Public awareness
12. Our inquiry is not
the vehicle to examine the merits or otherwise of targets but
it must be accepted that 14% public awareness of Part P or of
the competent persons schemes that implement compliance is unacceptable.
We conclude that the Government should aim to double this figure
within two years and aim for an awareness level broadly comparable
with Gas Safe within five years. (Paragraph 45)
13. We
welcome the establishment of a single register open to, and covering,
all those registered with a competent persons scheme for Part
P. We urge the competent persons scheme operators to build on
the work they have done and to ensure that a single register linked
to a single brand is fully operational by 30 June this year. (Paragraph
49)
14. We recommend that
the Government, through the conditions of the Building Regulations:
Competent Person Self-Certification Schemes—Conditions of
Authorisation permit, or if necessary seek legislative provision,
to require the competent persons scheme operators for Part P to
focus publicity on the single electrical register and linked brand
mark. (Paragraph 50)
Enforcement
15. With the results of
the UKAS review of the Part P competent persons scheme operators
due in June 2014 and on the basis that the report is published
in full, we conclude that it would be premature in this report
to comment further on the monitoring and supervision of the competent
persons by the scheme operators. We shall consider the matter
further when the UKAS review has been completed and consider the
matter again. (Paragraph 52)
16. We
conclude that the evidence points at best to patchy enforcement
by local authorities, though for understandable reasons. If the
competent persons schemes continue and if the changes we have
recommended in this report are made, it is essential that those
who stay outside a scheme and attempt to carry out notifiable
work in breach of building control be identified, reported and
prosecuted. We recommend that as a
matter of urgency the Government put in place new arrangements
to incentivise and assist local authorities to strengthen enforcement
of Part P. We suggest such arrangements could include the following:
a) a levy on those registered with a competent
persons scheme to be used to provide a fund to enhance enforcement;
the funding arrangements for enforcement could be managed on behalf
of local authorities, possibly through an agency such as LABC;
b) local authorities to inspect a sample of the
notifications;
c) the Government working with local authorities
to put in place and publicise arrangements to allow householders,
contractors and scheme operators to report work carried out in
breach of Part P;
d) where there is prima facie evidence of a breach
the local authority should investigate and, where a breach has
been found to have occurred, the authority should have a range
of sanctions available including on-the-spot fines; and
e) where a local authority successfully prosecutes
a breach through the courts, the court should as a matter of course
award the local authority its full costs from initiating and pursuing
the prosecution and a portion of the fine imposed because of the
breach. (Paragraph 55)
| 
