But that claim was disengenuous - the motive for NICEIC and ECA to lobby the government for years for controls on electrical work was to increase their control over the industry.
While it was still in consultation stage it was obvious to anyone with a GCSElevel ability in maths that the data on accidents and expected reduction in them was not a justification for Part P. The whole thing was a sham, put together by people who had either nevr heard of, or didn't understand, cost-benefit analysis.
Yup, and people are not dieing and getting hurt now, just as they were not dieing and getting hurt before
Why not?
Well - here's my reasoning.
I do all sorts of DIY, with varying degrees of competence, and for that which I can’t, or don’t want to do, I will use a professional. I’m a good painter and decorator, reasonable-ish carpenter as long as I know my limits, a crap gardener (mostly because of lack of interest), not much of a plumber (mostly because of lack of need to ever develop those skills), I’m a fabulous cook, I don’t do building/plastering/tiling, and, I genuinely believe, I am a perfectly competent electrician.
So yes, there is a great deal of self-interest in my position, but I make no apologies for that because my self-interest is the same as that of millions of other people.
I’m going to start building my case by looking at why people do DIY. As I see it there are 4 main reasons.
1) For enjoyment. Man is a tool-using animal, and there is a great deal of satisfaction to be gained from working with one’s hands to create something, and being able to stand back and say "I did that", particularly for people whose job isn’t like that. Gardening is the classic example of this - it would be a bit odd for someone to make continually rewiring their house or changing the wallpaper a hobby, but gardening is something that millions of people do for pleasure, and spend a lot of time doing it. But it is a form of DIY - they could always get a gardener to do it for them, and have the same end result to admire, but they choose to DIY because they enjoy it.
2) To save money. Pretty self evident.
3) To get a better job done. I’m not claiming that all DIYers will always do a better job than any professional, that would be ludicrous, as anybody who’d ever seen my bricklaying would be quick to point out. But there are times when a DIYer will achieve better results because of the amount of time they can lavish on a job. It’s often related to #2 - time is money, and there will be instances where someone for whom that is not true can do a better job than someone for whom it is. Take painting for example. The amount of work involved in, say, preparing a wooden window for repainting, particularly if it’s got lots of small panes, and decorative mouldings is huge. Nobody could make an economic proposition based around charging for doing it if they were truly going to do it as thoroughly as possible.
4) Convenience. There are times when the best way to get a job done is the 8AM start, bish-bosh all day long approach of the pro, and there are times when that level of disruption is unwelcome. Decorating is one example – DIYing at evenings and weekends will for sure take longer, but it will also be a lot less intrusive and disruptive to daily routine.
However, we do, of course, have to moderate the above for safety and community interest reasons. You can’t let anybody who knows how to mix mortar throw up whatever construction they want – you have to ensure that it is structurally sound, that it fits into planning rules etc etc. Even with gardening we’ve seen how regulation is needed to deal with the menace of Leylandii, and how H&S concerns have justifiable restrictions on what chemicals can be used and so on.
But in all instances it is the responsibility of Government to impose as light a touch as possible, and to only intervene when there is a compelling reason to do so. GAS SAFE regulations are often used as a parallel when arguing about Part P, but ironically the Gas Regs don’t prohibit DIY gas work, as long as it is “competently” done. I’ve never done anything with gas appliances apart from plugging a cooker into a bayonet fitting, so I don’t know how reasonable it is for a DIYer to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills, but I do know the following:
1) The potential for a catastrophic disaster with gas is much higher. Faulty electrical work might result in someone getting a shock, faulty gas work might result in a whole household dying in their sleep. A dodgy electrical connection might result in a small fire, and yes, I do realise that small fires can become large ones. A dodgy gas connection might result in an explosion, and there is no such thing as a small gas explosion.
I don’t know how many problems arise from non-GAS SAFE gas work, nor what percentage of them are due to work that should have been done by a registered person as opposed to genuine DIY work that went wrong, but unless it can be shown that DIY work is a major problem I’d say that the rules were about right.
2) Gas is much less pervasive and much more static in people’s homes than electricity. By that I mean that there are millions of houses where there are but one or two gas appliances (boiler & cooker), once installed they remain there for several years – longer, one hopes, if they’re well made. They don’t get moved about, or frequently replaced as part of a makeover. Gas pipes do not run throughout the house, and they don’t very often need rerouting. People don’t want to add the ability to control their gas cooker from two places. They don’t have gas lights that they’d like to replace with some stainless steel ones they bought in B&Q. They don’t want to run gas out to the garden and the shed to power lights, fountains and tools.
In short, there is nothing like the same need for people to make changes to their gas installation as there is with their electrical one. Restricting DIY electrical work is hugely more invasive than restricting DIY gas work.
3) Gas appliances are expensive, and in proportion to the cost of the item, the cost of paying a GAS SAFE registered person to install a condensing boiler is a great deal less, and therefore a great deal more reasonable to impose, than the comparative situation of having to pay a professional electrician to install a socket costing a couple of pounds. In the first case the labour costs are less than the cost of the item, in the second they are 10 or 20 times more.
Given that the impact of restrictions on DIY electrical work will therefore be felt by a very large number of people, and will have significant financial impact on a very large number of people, it is vital that there should be a compelling reason to implement restrictions.
In all activities that we fallible people undertake, there are risks, and the rules to moderate these activities in order to reduce the risks must be balanced against the costs, both financial and in terms of individual liberty. For example, on average around 10 people a day are killed on the roads in this country. The government rightly seeks to minimise road casualties by making drivers pass a test, imposing limits on how fast people are allowed to drive, how much alcohol they can drink, where they can drive, where they can park, how safe a condition their vehicle must be in and so on. They also encourage and force car manufacturers to make their products safer. They spend millions on public awareness campaigns. But could anyone argue that they could not achieve a dramatic reduction in casualties by imposing a blanket 20mph speed limit? By an outright ban on driving cars when there is fog, or ice and snow? By raising the minimum driving age to 30? By banning the sale and use of motorcycles? All of these measures would undoubtedly save lives, but none of them would be introduced.
Why? Because their impact would be too severe. However rational a case you can make for banning motorcycles, ultimately you can’t deny people that choice. The limits on personal mobility, choice of lifestyle, choice of job – all items of fundamental importance to individual liberty would be immense if you restricted people to travelling at 20mph, or staying at home for days or weeks at a time in winter. The impact on the economy would be catastrophic.
Ladders. In 1999, about 28,000 people were killed or injured falling from ladders and steps in the home. We could probably save quite a few lives, and a lot of economic costs, if we banned the use of ladders & steps. Would anybody be up for that? Would preventing people from changing their own lamps, painting their own houses, using their lofts etc be a price worth paying in order to save lives, or would it be an unwarranted intrusion?
It is often claimed that people are at risk from poor workmanship, but when asked to show produce evidence of that a typical reply is:
“Why should we need to? It’s pretty obvious that electrically unskilled persons work can put people in danger.”
Can yes, but do? I’m afraid the evidence does have to be produced, for in a free society restrictions on people’s freedoms cannot be imposed on the basis of “It’s pretty obvious” – you must be able to show that there is a severe problem.
I don’t want to be stopped from doing something that I find satisfying, I don’t want to have to pay 10-20x the cost of materials for someone to fit them, I don’t want to have to organise my domestic schedule around the efficiency needs of a tradesman when I need something done. And I suspect that neither do millions of others.
I’m not saying that no dangerous work is done – I’m saying that before you reduce my quality of life, and forcibly increase my financial outlay, and damage the business of companies that sell electrical products, you must, absolutely must, show that the amount of dangerous work is so great that it cannot be tolerated, and just like I’m not free to drive while I’m ****ed, or at 100mph down the High Street, I can’t be free to do my own wiring.
