Rescinding Amendment Three???

[ban-all-sheds]

Accidents attributed to poor workmanship are irrelevant.

If you are charging people for your services then you must be genuinely competent. Anybody who engages a professional <whatever> ought to be able to rely on that person being appropriately qualified to do the work.

If someone says "I am an electrician, pay me to do electrical work" then he bl***y well should be an electrician. A real one.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Given the present, and constant, low levels of incidents (and multitude of safety devices) related to electrical work, I do not understand the thinking that more regulation of electricians is required.

It is not the same as drivers - all driving is tested - because initially and still a lot of people were and are injured and killed.
Plumbers are not regulated unless they do gas work. I am not sure of specific reasons for the introduction of this.
Perhaps if there were gas RCDs, MCBs or fuses which could detect leaks and switch off the supply it would be different.

Because other occupations are regulated is not a reason in itself for the same to apply to electricians.
Would you advocate CRB checks for electricians, like taxi drivers, or are there no instances of this being necessary?

There are many businesses which anyone can enter without licencing.
Quoting the few that are is misleading.



On the other hand, given politicians fondness for bureaucracy, job creation for themselves and revenue raising, why do you think it has not been done already?

 

[stillp]

If you are charging people for your services then you must be genuinely competent. Anybody who engages a professional <whatever> ought to be able to rely on that person being appropriately qualified to do the work.

Yes, they should. Are you proposing legislation and all that implies for all paid work in the house? Decorators, cleaners, gardeners, wheelie bin cleaners, dog walkers, window cleaners... etc?

Have you read Orwell's 1984?

 

[SimonH2]

Provided the installer is able and prepared to terminate the ends in ferrules using the correct tool then Tri-rated would be a far better option.

Does tri-rated count as sheathed ? It looks just like a single layer of insulation to me, which surely precludes it being used (eg) between meter and CU and it wouldn't normally be practical to provide the mechanical protection right up to the meter terminals that the over-sheath of the "normal" meter tails provides.

But if not crimped correctly it could pose a risk of cut strands and loose connections.

Hmm, yes. I recall watching a "qualified" sparky wire up a new CU - this was simply economics as he was prepared to do the work for about the same or less than the LA charge for notification. I wasn't that happy with his work, but I found it a mix of amusing and disturbing to see that he had no idea how to use bootlace ferrules (far too much spare length on the RCBO tails)

The neutral tails in RCBOs are multi-strand flexible cable with their ends pre-formed ( welded ) into a solid block. The reason given for not cutting them short ( in order to tidy up the CU ) is the concern that the cut ends would not be crimped before being fitted into the neutral bar.

Well that's a plausible reason.

 

[JohnW2]

There would need to be different levels of qualification. ... Lowest would be the qualification to install cables and wire accessories in compliance with regulations. ... Highest would be the qualification and experience to be able to fault find on existing installations.

As BAS has pointed out, I think that would create a mess. I don't think it is sensible to allow people to install things if they are not also competent to test them and, if necessary, fault-find if there are any problems.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Indeed.
While in some environments it would be practical to have people who can install but not test or troubleshoot - the domestic environment (jobbing sparky) isn't generally one of them. It would really only make sense for something like a large housing estate where lots of houses are being built, and different teams are responsible for installation and testing. But in an environment like that, relatively unskilled workers could be employed under the control of a fully qualified person (or team) and so the differentiation is a bit moot.

My observation which seems to be backed up by comments in this forum is that troubleshooting is one of the main areas that many struggle with. I've observed that in other areas too - such as having to diagnose the failed microswitch after the engineers had been out and not found it 3 times in a week And as for understanding a 3 port valve (Y plan)

 

[JohnW2]

Together with regulators, examiners, enforcement procedures, guidance, and all the associated bureaucracy. Do we really need all that, given the tiny number of serious electrical accidents in domestic premises that can be attributed to poor workmanship?

It is for 'us' (society) to decide what we want but, as I often say, I think the "tiny number of serious electrical accidents ..." argument is a potentially 'dangerous' one, in terms of what 'we' (society) appear to want.

I strongly suspect that, say, 50-60 years ago, it would have been more-or-less equally true to say that there was only a "tiny number of serious electrical accidents in domestic premises that could be attributed to poor workmanship". If that is the case, then we could argue that all the (extensive) increases in 'requirements' (in the name of safety) since then have been unnecessary, and should be revoked. I certainly doubt that you could show that any reduction in "serious electrical accidents in domestic premises that could be attributed to poor workmanship" had resulted from the introduction of Part P (and, more to the point, the associated notification requirements) - so one could again argue that that should also be revoked.

If 'we' decide that we do need regulation of electrical work, it just seems odd to me that there is a requirement for registration/licensing in order to be able to legally offer paid services in fields seemingly much less potentially safety-critical than electrical work, but not in relation to electrical work.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

As in all things, it's a matter of balance. The only way to get "electrical" accidents down to zero would be to un-invent electricity.
Of course, over the past 50-60 years you talk of, the use of electricity has grown enormously - so it's not surprising that the number of incidents hasn't gone down. I have a suspicion that had the regs not tightened up then the incident rate (in absolute numbers) would have risen along with the rise in use of lecky.
50-60 years ago, lecky was probably one ceiling light in the middle of each room, and one socket in some rooms. That wouldn't have been a big issue as there weren't all that many things to plug in !

EDIT: And because it was "new and magical", many were just scared of it. Today many people are "rather complacent" (remember that "is 240V really dangerous ?" thread ?) as it's one of those things that's "always been there".
Anyone remember a scene from Downton Abbey where a gullible maid was sent to check the sockets were switched off so electricity wouldn't leak out overnight ?

My feeling is that the current situation is "about right". The "vibe" I got in here was that the 2005-2010 regime was so restrictive as to be counterproductive - allowing charlatans to misuse the regs to charge more, and preventing many smaller jobs getting done due to the cost of getting in a sparky to do it, and of course the biggie - driving DIY (or BIY) jobs underground.
As suggested on another thread, unless you can control the supply of materials then there will always be DIY work. Is it better for that to be out in the open, or hushed up and the DIYer afraid to ask for advice ? Even if you restrict supplies - that just provides an incentive to "make do" with whatever you have to hand. Of course, over the years I've never kept hold of any BT branded master sockets that have been removed during "tidying up" works

 

[SimonH2]

I've just been working with some Elandflex cable at work and thinking much the same thing ...

Ah, it wasn't Elandflex, it was BS638 cable I was working with (battery cables on the UPS) - really nice stuff. The Elandflex is in the bits box under my desk.

 

[JohnW2]

Given the present, and constant, low levels of incidents (and multitude of safety devices) related to electrical work, I do not understand the thinking that more regulation of electricians is required.

A valid argument - see what I've just written to stillp. It's really down to what 'we' want. As I've just written, I think one might well be able to revoke all the changes in requirements (including new 'safety devices') which have arisen in the last 50-60 years, and also revoke Part P (or, at least, the notification requirements) and still be able to talk about a similar "low level of incidents".

It is not the same as drivers - all driving is tested - because initially and still a lot of people were and are injured and killed.

As above, that appears to be an argument for abandoning all electrical safety regulations, on the grounds that not enough people would be killed/injured to justify them even if they were all revoked. Maybe society would be happy with that?

Because other occupations are regulated is not a reason in itself for the same to apply to electricians.

Not, per se. However, if occupations in which there is far less obvious potential 'to do harm' than is the case with electrical work are regulated, then one should probably at least question why electrical work is not similarly regulated.

Would you advocate CRB checks for electricians, like taxi drivers, or are there no instances of this being necessary?

That's rather different. Whilst I'm sure that one could argue a case for CRB checks, that is a totally different matter (and for totally different reasons), which is unrelated to the competence of the individual to safely undertake the work that they are implicitly (by calling themselves 'electricians') declaring themselves to be competent to do.

There are many businesses which anyone can enter without licencing. Quoting the few that are is misleading.

The point is that there appear to be many occupations for which 'licensing' is required for reasons that seem less obvious than would be the case with electricians.

On the other hand, given politicians fondness for bureaucracy, job creation for themselves and revenue raising, why do you think it has not been done already?

If society continues evolving in the way it has been evolving, I imagine that it will happen eventually. It has, of course, already happened (to lesser or greater extents) in a good few countries (one with a border with the UK).

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I find it sad that people start banging on about Orwellian-style regimes, and (no matter how may times I refute it) whether or not the level of incidents is significant.

There is what, IMO, is a very simple principle at stake here:

If you pay someone to provide a service, then you ought to be assured that they know how to do it.

And that's all. Different trades/professions will need different levels of qualifications, different levels of oversight, different levels of inspection, and so on. One size will not fit all. And some services are so trivial that there simply are no qualifications that a practitioner could get anyway - I'm not proposing that C&G should create qualifications for car washing, for example. But when you think that a careless valeter could write off a car in a few minutes, then maybe compulsory registration to assure his customers that he has insurance, and there is a grievance procedure etc, could be justified.

The need for "controls" is not only to do with dangers, it is also to do with people not being allowed to take money from other people for providing a service which they don't know how to do.

 

[JohnW2]

As in all things, it's a matter of balance. The only way to get "electrical" accidents down to zero would be to un-invent electricity.

Indeed so - and the level is already so low that nothing short of abolition of electricity could get it much lower!

Of course, over the past 50-60 years you talk of, the use of electricity has grown enormously - so it's not surprising that the number of incidents hasn't gone down. I have a suspicion that had the regs not tightened up then the incident rate (in absolute numbers) would have risen along with the rise in use of lecky.

Perhaps - but I'm far from convinced that there would have been as much (if any) rise as you seem to think. Furthermore, as you mention in your edit, 'improved safety' has undoubtedly resulted in some complacency. 'Back then', people probably had much more respect for (fear of?) electricity - many of the domestic electrical goings-on I recall from the late 50s and 60s would be regarded as unthinkably dangerous these days - yet people certainly weren't 'dropping like flies'!

My feeling is that the current situation is "about right".

Given the low number of 'incidents', you may well be right, but I still think it a little odd that those who trade as 'electricians' are not required to necessarily have any training, qualifications or experience, let along any mandatory registration/licensing. Perhaps worse, I suspect that a substantial proportion of the public think/believe that 'electricians' are regulated, particularly if they claim membership of any organisation/body!

The "vibe" I got in here was that the 2005-2010 regime was so restrictive as to be counterproductive ... As suggested on another thread, unless you can control the supply of materials then there will always be DIY work. Is it better for that to be out in the open, or hushed up and the DIYer afraid to ask for advice ?

I don't disagree with any of that, but it's a different discussion from that about those who trade as 'electricians' (i.e. offer paid electrical services to the public).

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

If you pay someone to provide a service, then you ought to be assured that they know how to do it..

Indeed. That is the point I've been making, and I think the only particularly practical way in which it could be addressed would be by having some sort of mandatory registration/licensing (which would, presumably, have requirements in terms of qualifications, experience etc., and ideally would include some 'auditing' and 're-evaluation').

Kind Regards, John

 

[SimonH2]

Can we summarise these arguments, and put them in a sticky thread, then every time it comes up (again, and again, and again) we can just link to the old thread and be done with it It might save some time.

 

[JohnW2]

Can we summarise these arguments, and put them in a sticky thread, then every time it comes up (again, and again, and again) we can just link to the old thread and be done with it It might save some time.

Maybe - but if we took that approach in general, the forum would probably be full of stickies (making new posts hard to find - on "page N"!!), with very few current discussions

Kind Regards, John