Oral evidence: Building regulations, HC 906Monday 6 January 2014
Oral evidence, 6 January 2014.
Witnesses
Steve Bratt, Electrical Contractors’ Association, Phil Buckle, Electrical Safety Council, Emma Clancy, Certsure and David Cowburn, NAPIT Registration, gave evidence.
Chair
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for joining us. I think that there are some familiar faces for the Committee to take evidence from again. Just for the sake of our records, could you begin by saying who you are and the organisation that you represent?
Steve Bratt
I am Steve Bratt and I am the chief executive officer of the Electrical Contractors’ Association.
Phil Buckle
I am Philip Buckle and I am the director general of the Electrical Safety Council.
Emma Clancy
I am Emma Clancy, chief executive of Certsure.
David Cowburn
I am David Cowburn, the managing director of NAPIT Registration.
Chair
Were you all in for the beginning of the previous session where I made a statement about sub judice?
Witnesses
Yes.
Chair
Okay. Thank you. So you heard that; obviously that applies to this panel session as well. You have obviously seen—I am sure you saw it before you came—some of the evidence on our website expressing concerns about the operation of the electrical competent person scheme, and you sat in and heard the evidence from the previous witnesses. Do you recognise any of those concerns or do you think it is just a small minority of people who have got a gripe that is personal to themselves and not really reflective of the industry as a whole?
Emma Clancy
I think the panel before raised a number of important issues that are of concern to them and to the industry as a whole. I think that awareness is something that we would acknowledge needs to be improved, and we have made some constructive suggestions recently as to how we may do that. I think the situation is complex. When the legislation was originally created, there was a desire to offer grandfather rights. There was also the prevalence of the DIY-er and our inability to stop the DIY stores, if you like, selling various bits of electrical equipment. So all of these various things have led to a complexity in the system that we would acknowledge and agree with the previous panellists in bringing forward. There are obviously some points that we would disagree with, in terms of the robustness of the schemes that we operate. There are some significant differences between the way that Gas Safe operates and the way that competent person schemes operate, which I think would be worth exploring in more detail if that’s relevant. So I think, yes, we agree on some points and perhaps on others not. When we conducted our own surveys in 2011 involving 4,000 contractors, 84% of them said that part P should stay and it should be strengthened, and 53% of those 4,000 contractors said that they had seen things improving. So, I think that there is a wider pool of evidence that also needs to be considered.
David Cowburn
I would add that as well as the things that we might agree with and disagree with, there were a number of things that were said that we may well sympathise with and certainly do sympathise with. There were comments about the regime and the structure, which are slightly outside the operation of the schemes themselves but which were worthy of exploring. I think we would recognise most of the issues that were raised today as issues that have been raised in previous consultations and previous reports. I think maybe we will get to this more as we go through the questioning. A number of the issues that have been raised have already begun to be addressed, not to a degree that our colleagues who have given evidence would see it in practice yet but to a degree that will take us forward, I am sure.
Chair
Which ones?
David Cowburn
To give an example, a lot of the conversation today was about what you set as the appropriate standard or the qualification that you would require for an electrician. Now, the standard that we all work to is called an electrotechnical assessment specification. We all work to the same standard within the scheme operators. It’s been through three iterations. It is now in its 2012 version.
Chair
Are we talking about the standard for someone who is going to be a member of the competent person scheme or a standard for someone who walks through a door and does the work?
David Cowburn
This is the standard that covers the enterprise that would be registered by one of our schemes, which includes, then, the individuals they employ. There is an annexe within that standard that says, “the individual that you employ should have one of these qualifications”. I think there was some talk about what is the appropriate level. Certainly, reading the evidence submitted by paper, prior to tonight, lots of references were made to the national occupational standards. The standard that we now work to requires a level 3 NVQ or equivalent. That is based on the national occupational standards. When we talk about “or equivalent”, every single equivalent that is listed here is mapped against the national occupational standards. Some of the witnesses earlier mentioned having the wiring regulations qualification in there as well—it is—and that we should have inspect and test qualifications in there, as well—they are—but what we need to reflect is that it has not always been that way. There has been an uplifting of the requirements in this standard that I am referring to. We have only been imposing the latest level of standards since last year. I recognise the issues that our colleagues in the industry have got with low-level and short courses, but we have acted to address—and when I say, “we”, it is not the scheme operators; this standard is set by the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the Government, Local Authority Building Control, the sector skills councils, the awarding bodies, not just the scheme operators. Just to finish off on that, there is a requirement that people have sufficient experience—it now says, “two years”. You cannot be a five-day wonder and have two years’ experience. We have tried to address it in that manner. That is just to give you one example of an issue that we would fully recognise, but have been making progress on.
Steve Bratt
Just to add to what David said, that line has been drawn in the sand this year. Prior to that, you could argue that that standard was not in existence and this is not going to be applied retrospectively. So over time it will resolve the issue. However, from this year onwards, moving forward, there is a much more robust standard in place, now, for people entering the industry.
Chair
So it will not be applied retrospectively. Will you explain that?
Steve Bratt
When Part P was introduced, a decision was taken not to have this level of qualification in place at that point, because there were clearly people working in our industry who had various levels of qualification and experience. So there were no restrictions at the level we are talking about imposed at that point. We have been pushing for an enhancement of that, to the point that, in this year, they came into effect. Anyone who came in prior to this point will have met a different standard from that that David has just described. Now, the standards will be much more robust for people entering the industry.
Chair
We need to understand this, because it is quite an important point. If any person comes along now and says, “I want to register under the competent person scheme, this is my company”, would they have to ensure that every person who worked for them and did electrical work had a level 3 NVQ or equivalent?
David Cowburn
No. You heard reference earlier to the qualified supervisor. The qualified supervisor requirement did not use to be this high. They are what has been increased.
Chair
The qualified supervisor.
David Cowburn
Yes.
Q52 Chair
What does “qualified supervisor” mean, precisely?
David Cowburn
This is the individual responsible for the electrical work carried out by—
Chair
Who signs the work off, as the competent person.precisely?
David Cowburn
Yes. And bear in mind there can be more than one—
Chair
So the person who actually does the work need not be qualified at all.
David Cowburn
The person who carries out the work must be competent.
Chair
No. I shall just ask the question again.
David Cowburn
There is a problem with the word, “qualification”.
Chair
The person who does the work need not have any qualification at all.
David Cowburn
That is correct. They have to be found to be competent by some other means, potentially.
Chair
Right. Okay. So we are talking here about qualifications for the people who are a competent person under the scheme, who actually sign the work off.
David Cowburn
Yes.
Emma Clancy
Yes, who are legally responsible. The QS is legally responsible for the work they sign off.
Chair
So we make sure—we are talking about that issue, not about the issue of the qualifications of the people who actually do the work. There is no requirement to have any qualification at all, under any of the schemes.
David Cowburn
There is a requirement to be competent.
Chair
I don’t know who will judge competence, if the person has not got qualifications. I do not know who does that.
David Cowburn
I say that particularly because there is not even a requirement for the qualified supervisor to have a qualification. They must be competent.
Chair
The person who does the work need not even be competent by law.
Phil Buckle
They must be competent.
David Cowburn
An example was given earlier by one of the witnesses about work that could be done by someone who was not competent, but that would be someone working outside the schemes and on a type of electrical work—
Chair
The only person who must be competent is the person who signs the work off legally. Is that so?
David Cowburn
Legally, yes.
Chair
So the person who does the work doesn’t even have to pass a test of competency.
David Cowburn
In theory, yes.
Chair
In theory and in practice.
David Cowburn
In practice, more than 80%—
Chair
I am just saying that those people do not have to be competent. Some may well be, but they do not have to be.
David Cowburn
Yes.
Chair
How many complaints a year do you get about your schemes?
Phil Buckle
Through the DCLG review, I have the facts to hand. For all of the eight competent person scheme operators who run electrical installation activities, the number of complaints measured as a proportion of the number of notifications—that is, jobs done—was less than 1% for the period between 1 November 2012 and 31 March 2013.
Chair
How many is that?
Phil Buckle
Well, 79% of complaints were settled. I do not know the actual number.
Chair
Could you give us a note about that please.
Phil Buckle
We can provide that. Of those complaints, 79% were settled in favour of the complainant or by mutual agreement, so the number of complaints is very small given the number of notifications per annum.
Emma Clancy
I can provide the figures now if that aids thinking. There are around 500 consumer complaints a year for over 1 million jobs notified.
Chair
Do you have complaints about cowboys in the industry? Do you have concerns about that?
David Cowburn
If by cowboys you mean people who are acting outside the registration scheme incompetently, we have great concerns. To a degree, a lot of the evidence submitted to you focuses perhaps too much on the registration schemes when there is an issue about the work being done by the totally unregistered, which DCLG estimated at over 20,000 contractors. How do we persuade the industry to go along with registration when understanding by the public and the industry is poor, which we accept.
Chair
Have you any concerns about cowboys within the scheme—registered cowboys?
Emma Clancy
We have confidence in the assessment processes that we operate and our contractors.
Phil Buckle
It must be remembered that the acid test is the on-site assessment that scheme operators undertake. None of the firms that submit to becoming registered with a competent person scheme can just do work without any review of that work activity. The qualified supervisor or supervisors—there can be more than one in a company—must provide the information relevant to lists of jobs undertaken for the assessor to review that work on a random or selective basis. I think Emma or David are probably better qualified to talk about that than I am.
Chair
Okay, we will move on to that.
Bob Blackman
In terms of the registers you are responsible for, how many people have been excluded from the register over the last 12 months?
Emma Clancy
Around 10% of people leave the scheme a year.
Bob Blackman
So these are members of the scheme who leave. They could be retiring or going on to another job.
Emma Clancy
Yes.
Bob Blackman
You specifically have excluded them because they are not competent to do the job.
Emma Clancy
No, 10% leave and that could be for a range of reasons.
Bob Blackman
So how many have been excluded for not being competent?
Emma Clancy
Around two and a bit percent of that 10%.
Bob Blackman
Sorry, is that 2% of the membership or 2% of 10%?
Emma Clancy
It is 2% of 10%.
Chair
Right. So it is 0.2%.
Emma Clancy
Can I describe the process a bit to put that into context? Of the people who apply to us—
Bob Blackman
I am not talking about people who apply. I am talking about existing members who are excluded because their work is not up to the required standard. There is a difference between people applying and people who are already members of the scheme but are found to be incompetent after they have been through the assessment process. That is the first thing I am looking at.
Emma Clancy
Okay.
Chair
But you can, by all means, describe the assessment process.
Emma Clancy
Only in the context that getting on to the scheme is difficult in the first place. Exclusions happen as part of that. Only 43% of people who write in to us or make an application proceed through the system to an actual visit and inspection. They then go through a rigorous half-day assessment by our competent people, who look at the work that they undertake. At that point we have around an 83% pass mark. The idea is that the system itself makes it very clear from the beginning what we expect from people, and there is some self-selection before they get to that point. Once they are registered with us, we support and guarantee their work. So they should be good, and we would expect them to stay with us. Yes, if a consumer complaint comes in, or if we have concerns about their work—which could be raised by the contractors—we address it and look at it, and people are thrown off the register for those reasons. Back to the consumers having confidence about who turns up at their door, it is better that the process is the bit up front so that we can be confident about the people who are on the register. That is the point I wanted to make.
Bob Blackman
I understand that.
David Cowburn
Exclusion is only one sanction, and it is important within the processes to recognise that, where we have evidence of non-compliance, there are other things that happen. You might increase the amount of inspection, or you might bring the assessments forward. We sometimes do customer services to find out whether it is an isolated problem or more widespread. We can set improvement actions, and they might be sent on training courses or be required to employ different and better resources. We have probationary membership that requires reassessment. We have conditional registration, which requires them to jump through hoops to remain on the register, and they may be suspended for a period of time before coming back onto the register. Although you are right to ask about exclusion, and exclusion does happen, it is often in the best interest of the consumer for improvement actions, other monitoring and other sanctions to take place so that, if there is faulty work, it is rectified and that the improvements are accepted by the enterprise so that they go back into the marketplace working competently within a scheme, rather than working incompetently outside a scheme.
Bob Blackman
Mr Bratt?
Steve Bratt
We don’t actually run a scheme. We are stakeholders within the sector of schemes. The figures that Emma has quoted are relevant.
Bob Blackman
Mr Buckle?
Phil Buckle
I have similar views to those expressed by Mr Bratt.
Bob Blackman
Fine. What checks have you undertaken to ensure that people applying for registration have not been excluded by another scheme?
Emma Clancy
This is a new condition of authorisation brought in by DCLG, and it is effective from June. Scheme operators are obliged to share that information, and indeed there is a system in place to ensure that we do that. So it is something that has happened in the past on a fairly informal basis, and it is one of the things that have been improved. As I have said, it comes into effect from June. That process is in place, so we will share and check. We ask at the moment, but the process will be further tightened by the new procedures.
Bob Blackman
You ask, but do you verify in any way, shape or form at the moment?
Emma Clancy
Yes, we do.
Bob Blackman
How do you do that?
Emma Clancy
Just by calls.
Bob Blackman
Calls to whom?
Emma Clancy
To each other across the six schemes.
David Cowburn
There is a database in place now that we can each access individually to see the movement of enterprises between schemes and whether there is any history. If someone makes a claim on their application form, we can verify it on the database. Emma is quite right that, in the past, we had to do that informally.
Bob Blackman
Are you aware of any prosecutions taking place for non-compliance? Has any work gone so badly wrong that prosecutions have taken place as a result of that work not being up to standard?
Emma Clancy
I am aware of three in the past year.
Bob Blackman
And were they registered competent persons on your register?
Emma Clancy
I am not sure. At least two were on our register, but I am not sure about the third. They are the individual prosecutions of which I am aware in the industry. We also have around 99 contractors on our wall of shame for misusing our logo. Again, it is a public-facing website, so we are saying to people, “Don’t use these people for these reasons because they are claiming to be represented by a scheme when they are not.” We take steps to try to promote that information, too.
Bob Blackman
Finally, I think you said that 43% of applicants to the register are not successful. Is that correct?
Emma Clancy
When people call up, we say, “These are the things that you need to show us, and this is the standard that you need to make,” and they choose not to progress, or they go through a telephone interview and we turn them down at that point because we think that they are going to fail the assessment process, which would be disappointing for all parties.
Bob Blackman
And the pass mark is about 83% for those who go through the whole process?
Emma Clancy
Correct.
Bob Blackman
And do we know what happens to the 17% who fail?
Emma Clancy
Sometimes they come back. We want them to join; we want them to be part of the system. We will say, “You need to get more jobs in this area, or you need to do this or that.” So they come back sometimes. Other times they don’t or they go to a different scheme.
Bob Blackman
Presumably, that 17% could go off and work for a firm that has a qualified, competent person, but they are not qualified themselves. They can go off and do electrical work in the industry.
Emma Clancy
But they are competent.
Bob Blackman
Are they competent? How do you know? You have said they are not competent because you have turned them down.
Emma Clancy
Because, in the analogy, the QS is legally responsible for ensuring that the people doing the work they are signing off are competent. We talk about the driving test. Our belief is very clearly that you need the qualifications—of course you do—but you also need the work experience and you need that to be judged in a practical environment, looking at the work that you are doing. That is where the competence part of the jigsaw comes in and that is the primary concern of the scheme operators. The training is set by the national occupational qualification and that has been increased. Like the driving test, you would not want to get behind the wheel of a car if you had only read the book. We are the driving test part of the jigsaw.
David Cowburn
Could I chip in with the other issue? It is a genuine concern that if a contractor who fails to get through the process has the opportunity to trade perfectly legally, with no registration whatsoever, having failed their assessment, in theory by informing Building Control of their work, but in practice, because of the lack of enforcement in that area, they can just trade perfectly legally.
Mark Pawsey
I am told that it is very easy to find on the internet adverts for courses claiming that they can train you as an electrician in five weeks. Is five weeks long enough to learn to become a competent person?
David Cowburn
Not always. The criteria are set and five weeks for someone with some experience might be enough. Mr Morris earlier said that he can’t easily nail it down to a number of weeks or months. It is key to recognise that training alone is not the criterion we set for someone to be registered. It is training, practice, doing the job; it is us inspecting the work they do, asking them technical questions when our assessors are with them. The exams they have passed may be to do with the practice of carrying out electrical work, but there is also a requirement that they must each pass a test to understand the wiring regulations, the British Standard that they must understand. It gets criticised because it is not difficult to pass, but the very act of having to undertake the exam makes them read, study and understand those regulations. We also require things on the business that is being registered that could not possibly be covered by training: insurance, holding test equipment, calibrating test equipment, filling in paperwork, having a complaints system.
Mark Pawsey
Those aren’t covered on the course?
David Cowburn
Well, they wouldn’t be delivered purely by being qualified, because they apply to the enterprise not the individual. Some of these training courses will of course help individuals to understand those requirements. It depends how they are structured. They key to us is that, after achieving whatever training or qualifications they have got, they come to us to be assessed. No matter what they have got in their background, they have to be assessed.
Mark Pawsey
So you would argue that those advertisements are very misleading. If there is an impression out there that you can achieve a qualification from scratch to become an electrician in five weeks, it is completely misleading and wrong for any organisation to make such a claim.
David Cowburn
It is misleading to say that it would guarantee registration. But bear in mind that you can be an electrician, you can carry out electrical work, without being registered. People will often trade on the back of having done a training course. “I have been Part P trained” does not mean that they have come into one of our organisations.
Mark Pawsey
Are those the five-day wonders that we heard about earlier?
David Cowburn
Both those and perhaps five-day plus and five-month plus.
Mark Pawsey
All of the witnesses, do your companies provide training courses?
Emma Clancy
Certsure provides training courses under licence from City and Guilds and EAL.
Phil Buckle
No, we are consumer-facing.
David Cowburn
We are not training providers per se.
Mark Pawsey
Does that make up a large part of your work? No. May I just ask about levels of competency? Is it right that the level of competency to work in an industrial environment should be higher than in a domestic environment? What is your view on that?
Emma Clancy
It is about appropriateness. For example, for our predominantly commercial scheme known as the approved contractor, it is a whole-day assessment. The assessment takes into account the nature of the work that you are doing.
Mark Pawsey
How would you know that somebody who is only approved to work in a domestic environment is not working on commercial installations?
Emma Clancy
We would know whether we had assessed them for that. We would not know whether they were doing that work. What is important from our point of view is that we are only listing for what we have assessed people to be competent to deliver.
Mark Pawsey
How would a system prevent somebody who is only accredited for domestic work from moving over to commercial work without carrying out any further training? Are there any controls on that?
David Cowburn
It is not regulated. Only the domestic sector is regulated.
Emma Clancy
It is only in the domestic sector that it is regulated. Outside of that, it is not.
David Cowburn
On a voluntary level, though, the specification that I talked about earlier that covers the domestic sector also covers the commercial sector. You asked about levels, and I am not an expert in education but level 3 is an understood level of qualification. Both for domestic and for industrial work, they are level 3 qualifications. One is a certificate and the other is a diploma, but they are both set at level 3, which means able to work unsupervised.
Mark Pawsey
Right, but you did say that there is no regulation at all in respect of commercial installations.
David Cowburn
You have to meet the Electricity at Work Regulations, but there is no scheme or measure of competence or registration.
Emma Clancy
There is a voluntary scheme, which is long established and much respected.
Phil Buckle
So if you expanded your business activity, which firms might legitimately wish to do, you would fall under the Electricity at Work Regulations for that industrial or commercial work. If a firm were to err and cause a problem for the client, the Health and Safety Executive would take enforcement action.
Mark Pawsey
Okay, so the regulation in respect of commercial has got a lot more beef than in respect of domestic installations.
Phil Buckle
In terms of it being a statutory regulation made under the health and safety at work Act, yes.
Steve Bratt
In addition, our fellow witnesses referred a lot to the JIB and the ECS card, in particular. There are, I believe, more than 110,000 ECS cards in existence, and the industry at a commercial level to some extent regulates itself. Responsible employers will always choose an ECS card holder, because as an enterprise it is a good way of demonstrating that the individual employee is competent. It is extensively used in the commercial sector also because it has connections to health and safety passport schemes, which are widely used in the construction industry.
Mark Pawsey
As a question off the top of my head, why cannot some of the regulation that applies in the commercial sector simply be morphed over to the domestic sector?
Steve Bratt
It could be. I believe that there are agreements in place already for it to operate voluntarily to qualified supervisor level. It is possible for that to happen. I believe that the JIB has made a response as part of the submission for evidence, although that has not appeared on the website for some unknown reason. It would probably make a similar point.
Heather Wheeler
I am fascinated, Ms Clancy and Mr Cowburn, because you are very proud of the authorities that you run and the professionalism that you give people competency tests for, so what are you doing about publicly decrying the adverts for five-day and five-week training? Are you taking them to the Advertising Standards Authority? What are you doing about that?
Emma Clancy
We are, in some ways, the driving test part of the business rather than the qualifications part. As our network of colleagues are represented on different boards, we do talk about training courses and about raising standards. That is exactly why the improvements that David mentioned earlier have happened, because the industry works together to do exactly that. We work very hard with trading standards to make sure that when people are displaying the logo wrongly in terms of the schemes, that is addressed. We all provide expert witnesses in various cases to support that. Most positively, we talk about the good reasons why you should use a competent person in your home to have electrical work done. The charity talks very clearly about the wider safety issue, and then we talk about the wisdom of choosing a qualified, competent person to have electrical work done in your home, because of the guarantees that it brings and the safety confidence that you can have as a result.
David Cowburn
One of the main things that we have done is to try to exclude such training from delivering people into our hands. By setting the standards that say you must have two years’ experience and a qualification that is equivalent to the national occupational standards, it cannot be delivered in that way. We cannot stop people falsely advertising what their training courses can deliver, but we can stop them being the mechanism for coming into a scheme—and that is what we seek to do.
Emma Clancy
Stop them being registered.
Heather Wheeler
If you see them being advertised in local newspapers, you don’t think it is your duty to get hold of the editor and get an editorial piece—a puff piece—about “Fine, these are really interesting five-week courses, but you are not going to be a qualified electrician afterwards, and you will not get registered: there are 10 other hoops you have got to go through”? Don’t you think it is your duty to do that?
Emma Clancy
We help people when they call us, but no, I don’t think it is our duty to do that. I think it is our duty to publicise broad safety messages. It is our duty to uphold the competencies in the scheme. We can influence the training agenda, but they are allowed to operate and exist. That comes back to the previous comments about some of the complexities. I feel more passionately about DIY sheds selling things that they should not; but I cannot do much about that, I am afraid. What I can do is say to people why they should not ask their dad to do something along those lines.
Heather Wheeler
Fair enough. I will remember not to ask my dad.
Steve Bratt
As the trade association we recently submitted our responses to BIS as part of an evidence collection they made, looking at the apprenticeship and training framework for our industry. We have as part of that process suggested this whole area of training needs tightening; there needs to be some standard applied; there needs to be some marque that contractors can look for to know they are going to get good advice. I end up writing letters back to people who quote to me endless lists of courses they have taken, and now they cannot get a job. They cannot get an ECS card from the JIB, etc. We need something done about that, and we have started that process through BIS.
Heather Wheeler
Thank you very much.
Simon Danczuk
Just to clarify one small point—I may have missed it. You said that 0.2% had been excluded. What is that in numbers as opposed to percentages?
Emma Clancy
It was 2.5%. No, 2%, I hope.
Simon Danczuk
Two per cent. of 10½%, wasn’t it?
Emma Clancy
No, 2% of the 10%.
Simon Danczuk
What is that in numbers?
Emma Clancy
I’ll have to let you know that. I don’t know that off the top of my head. Maybe my colleague may.
Simon Danczuk
A hundred? Fifty?
Emma Clancy
We have 36,000 on the roll currently, so I will just have to do the maths in my head.
Chair
It is quite a lot.
Emma Clancy
Yes.
Simon Danczuk
A broader question for all the panel: would it be reasonable to conclude that the problems that this inquiry has revealed cannot really be addressed by the scheme operators?
Emma Clancy
I think many of the problems that have been identified, both in this session and previous sessions, are being addressed by the changes in the conditions of authorisation. We have talked already about the sharing of data to stop people scheme-hopping. There is increased UKAS accreditation for all the schemes. The DCLG have increased their supervision and increased their oversight and addressed many of the issues that the Select Committee—
Simon Danczuk
So your answer is that you think the scheme operators can address all the problems.
Emma Clancy
It is work in progress. Some of the complexities are challenging.
Simon Danczuk
When will the work be concluded, if it is work in progress?
Emma Clancy
For the changes to the conditions of authorisation—
Simon Danczuk
For all the problems to be sorted out.
Emma Clancy
I didn’t say all of them can be sorted out. I was pointing to the progress that is being made, and particularly referencing the DCLG changes in the conditions of authorisation, which are being implemented in June 2015.
Simon Danczuk
Do other members of the panel think the scheme operators are capable of sorting these problems out—it is all going in the right direction, and we shouldn’t worry about it?
Emma Clancy
I don’t think we said that.
David Cowburn
You should worry about it. We should all be worried about it; but we all have a part to play, so to suggest that we don’t have a role is incorrect—to suggest that we are the only ones that have a role is also incorrect. We have heard a number of things from a number of witnesses, many of which we agree with. Some of those things are concerned with regulation, so, to give you a good example, a lot of work is not notifiable under the current regulations—in fact, more so than was the case two years ago. If we are trying to publicise to consumers exactly what should happen in the electrical industry, we have really complicated it, because you can either be notifiable or non-notifiable; notifiable in England but not in Wales, or the other way round; if notifiable, you can comply through competent persons, through building control, through being qualified. So, globally, we have created a complicated message—
Simon Danczuk
A mess.
David Cowburn
A complicated message, which we all recognise makes it difficult to give clean, easy consumer messages. If you were to ask me to fix that, one thing I would say—
Simon Danczuk
That is just one of the problems, isn’t it? Out of many. Phil, Steve, you have an interest in this, do you not?
Steve Bratt
Yes, and I concur with David: some of the things that may be in our own control, we can deal with; some of the things we are partners with others, so we contribute to and I believe that we can deal with; and some things are out of our control. One of the things that we need some help in resolving is the issue of enforcement. We heard earlier, and have heard again, that we tried to provide a carrot, but ultimately there has to be some form of stick. Where our industry differs from some of the others is that there is very limited enforcement. We talked about the gas industry, for example, with health and safety to enforce—just not being Gas Safe-registered is an offence and will be acted upon. Not being in the scheme is unlikely to result in any kind of censure, unless you have done something seriously wrong. The enforcement end of things needs some work—that is outside our control, but we would happily work to resolve that and to create a framework that would be effective.
Simon Danczuk
Phil?
Phil Buckle
I think it is about the messaging and, as was outlined by my colleagues, the difficulties in talking to consumers about Part P are well rehearsed and well known. That is why, from an Electrical Safety Council point of view, we have moved into messaging to consumers about using a registered electrician or choosing a registered competent person, rather than saying Part P—come away from that name and talk to the consumers about how they can benefit through choosing a register. We have run a number of campaigns over the past year or so and, importantly, we have talked to the consumer about avoiding dodgy geezers. We have engaged with the consumer about the risks of using a non-registered person and shown the negative side of that in quite hard-hitting ways. We have funded four campaigns, which have been focused around that whole area of making sure that people understand that they need to use a competent, qualified electrician—
Simon Danczuk
Those campaigns have had a massive impact.
Phil Buckle
They have been seen or heard by consumers more than 200 million times over the past year, which is quite an impact.
Simon Danczuk
You think the public are well aware of how the system works and who they should and should not get.
Phil Buckle
Well, if I compare our position with the Gas Safe register that was mentioned—I have to declare an interest there, because I am a trustee of the Gas Safe Charity—it is about 45% awareness using a Gas Safe-registered operative.
Simon Danczuk
What is yours running at? What is it for electricians?
Phil Buckle
When we were talking purely about Part P, it was about 14%, but when we talked to the consumer about using a trained or registered electrician—
Simon Danczuk
You mean a qualified electrician.
Phil Buckle
Trained, competent, qualified—those terms that are used—it is running at about 50%.
Simon Danczuk
Of course the public would understand that they should use an experienced electrician—that is an obvious question to ask the public, isn’t it? Of course they would say yes. I am surprised that it is not more than 50% to be quite honest. They would not say, “I would rather use an inexperienced or unqualified electrician,” would they? Let me move on, because you bring me to an important point. I have only been an MP for three and a half years, but in all the time that I have served on this Select Committee—for a majority of that time—I have never seen less co-operation and less desire to try to get solutions to a particular problem than I have seen with regard to this particular issue. Do you not agree that the only losers out all of this are consumers? They are the people who are losing out in terms of the lack of regulation, organisation or co-operation that exists within this sector and industry. It is the consumer that is losing out. Would you agree, Steve? Just a yes or no would be great.
Steve Bratt
No.
Simon Danczuk
You don’t agree. The consumer is all right—
Steve Bratt
I didn’t say that.
Simon Danczuk
Phil, what do you think? Do you think everything is okay, Emma?
Emma Clancy
I want to expand on the answer, rather than being driven to give a yes or no.
Simon Danczuk
The only people losing out are the consumers. What do you think?
Emma Clancy
There are 1 million jobs notified every year but, because of the presence of competent person schemes, they are done by competent people, who are backed by insurance-backed warranties and have organisations that they can call, so if something is wrong we go and fix it. Only this afternoon, I was dealing with an old lady who had wrongly—
Simon Danczuk
Emma, I do not want to hear about the old lady. I am speaking about consumers, and they are losing out. You don’t agree that they are losing out?
Emma Clancy
I don’t agree with you, no.
Simon Danczuk
So everything is fine.
Emma Clancy
No, I did not say that everything was fine. I said that there are things that we can improve on, but I do not believe that the scheme is losing out.
David Cowburn
I have to note that you changed your question as you came along from “Are consumers losing out?” to “We do or don’t agree with you that they are or aren’t.” It is grey. Some consumers are losing out, but most consumers are benefiting because the people who are registered are accountable in a way that they could not be held to account if we did not have a scheme, which was the case prior to Part P.
Simon Danczuk
Let me finish what I was asking. Do you agree that there is too much competition between scheme operators, and that that is what is delaying progress and reducing the chances of driving up standards?
Phil Buckle
With respect, standards are increasing and my colleagues have outlined that fact in the last half an hour or so. If I could just lean on my previous experience of being involved with the development of those standards, when we started this in 2004-05, it was clear that we had to allow a route in for all of those people who were doing electrical work as an adjunct to their daily activities, such as gas engineers and garage door fitters. Over this period of time, we have increased the requirements for the qualified supervisor so that they are more robust and more demanding. In terms of the consumer benefiting, I would also say that we have increased awareness and, as I mentioned with those stats, it is around the understanding of there being a law. We do not talk about Part P, because it is a letter—
Simon Danczuk
So are you saying that competition between the operators is driving up standards?
Emma Clancy
The Select Committee previously raised—
Simon Danczuk
Is that what you are saying, Phil?
Phil Buckle
I am saying that the collaboration between the competent person scheme operators within the relevant forms is helping increase the standard and making sure that there is a level of competency. In the previous meetings, I think we had a disagreement about the registers. We are all working hard to resolve those problems and make sure that we have an identifiable mark and a register that the consumer can refer to. That will make my life easier within the Electrical Safety Council, talking to the consumer, because I will have one point of reference in the not-too-distant future.
Simon Danczuk
Any other contributions on competition?
David Cowburn
It is incumbent on us all to recognise that there are both positives and negatives in competition and it is therefore vital that we make sure that the negatives are cancelled out and the positives exploited.
Mrs Glindon
What effect have the changes made to Part P in 2012 had on the operation of the electrical competent person schemes?
Phil Buckle
The 2012 changes? I think we all feel that it is too soon to say, because DCLG agreed when they introduced and implemented the changes that they would review them within a two-year period. We are not far into that period. The Electrical Safety Council held an industry summit that all colleagues around the table and a number of electricians came along to. The then Minister, Don Foster, did commit to making sure that there was a review of the changes to make sure that the change to the notification requirements and the introduction of a third-party certifier route had not diluted standards or meant that there was a mass exodus of registered firms away from the scheme because they were using some cottage industry third-party certifier to do the work for them. We need a little bit more time to give you a comprehensive answer to that, but we are certainly monitoring that ourselves and working with DCLG to make sure that things are not detrimental to the consumer.
Mrs Glindon
UKAS is not permitted to compile a list of common complaints and failings. Would you be happy to see a requirement written into the DCLG conditions of authorisation to allow UKAS to compile and report such a list?
David Cowburn
In fact, we have all signed a waiver to allow UKAS to report to DCLG.
Emma Clancy
So yes.
David Cowburn
It is already in place.
Simon Danczuk
Scheme operators have to ensure that their members notify all completed work to the scheme and forward a certificate of building regulations complaints to customers. Given that only the contractor is aware of installation work undertaken, how can we be sure that that is being monitored effectively?
David Cowburn
We do several things to try to check that. For instance, when we audit a company, we will look at their work records and compare things like orders, invoices and diaries with the actual work that they have notified, and we will look at their electrical certificates that they keep copies of to make sure that everything stacks up. Because our systems of reporting will identify contractors whose notification patterns change, or are particularly low or particularly high, our assessor can go in with a degree of intelligence about what to assess and what to audit to try and ensure that people really are complying with the building regulations and notifying the work that they should. So we do check it.
Simon Danczuk
So you are comfortable that everything is being reported as it should be.
David Cowburn
Not everything can ever be reported as it should be. What I am comfortable with is that we have carried out, to the best of our abilities, testing of that system, and that we act when we find that that is not the case.
Simon Danczuk
Kev Lee, an electrician, told the Committee in an evidence submission: “The scheme operators only see the contractor once a year. They collect the member’s money once a year BEFORE the inspection is carried out. It’s all over within half an hour and we carry on regardless”.
David Cowburn
I can honestly say that we have never come across a half-an-hour inspection. I honestly have not, and we have had complaints about them and investigated them.
Simon Danczuk
It takes an hour.
David Cowburn
It takes half a day.
Simon Danczuk
Other than that, what about the other points? He is lying? He’s gone to the trouble of submitting this, but he is not telling the truth?
David Cowburn
The comments that he has made are that he gets assessed once a year for half a day, which is absolutely correct, and that he pays prior to that taking place, which is absolutely correct. I think those were the only two points, weren’t they?
Simon Danczuk
The NAPIT has suggested giving local authorities greater powers, such as the ability to issue on-the-spot fines for failure to comply with Part P. Is everybody in agreement that that is the right way forward?
David Cowburn
It is a suggestion that was made by a sub-committee of the competent persons forum that all the scheme operators sat on, and not just for the electrical sector either.
Chair
I have one point on something NAPIT gave in evidence. The situation is that where you have a company that is part of the competent person scheme, the owner or manager of the company is deemed to be a competent person to certify all the work that is carried out by that company. The company gets checked by SOs once a year for half a day. They might be employing 200 people in that company, who may have varying degrees of qualification, and that one person is supposed to certify all that work. Is that realistic? I think NAPIT is saying that you are not happy, and you want to see a change to the rules in that regard. What you have given in evidence to us is that you do “not agree with the Qualified Supervisor model, requiring only one person within an enterprise to meet the required standard”, and you have called for the removal of the phrase “adequately supervised”. Will you say briefly what that means, and does everybody else agree with it?
David Cowburn
The reason that we lobby for that, or have lobbied for that, is that we genuinely believe that it is important that the person who comes to the doorstep is competent, which is a phrase that you have heard already today. That can be achieved by various models, but the model that we are trying to promote is one where the evaluation of competence within a company goes beyond that of the qualified supervisor. The responsibility for employing competent individuals is correctly phrased in the specification and it does not have to be that we assess every individual in a company every year. There is a balance to be made there. We believe you can cycle through employees at random, making sure that you have covered a sufficient sample to measure whether the employer is employing competent people beyond the qualified supervisors. Test that supervision is working—I suppose that is what I am saying.
Chair
So you are saying that the individual who does the work has to have some test of competency to be employed by that company, which is not the case now?
David Cowburn
The standard says they should be competent and/or supervised. We think they should be competent and supervised.
Chair
Does everyone else agree with that?
Emma Clancy
I do not disagree, but could I make a couple of additional points in terms of context?
Chair
Well, if you don’t disagree, do you agree?
Emma Clancy
I do agree, but the QS system is not quite as it is being described at the moment, and in weighing up the pros and cons we need to be clear about that. You described a situation where there may be hundreds of people and one QS. That is not the case, and that would not happen. The number of QSs is decided, as part of the process, carefully and against measured criteria. So you could have a two-man band that operates in different parts of London who couldn’t possibly check each other’s work. That firm would need two quality supervisors. There would not be just one, even though it was a two-man band; they would need two.
Chair
So people could actually sign off the work under the scheme?
Emma Clancy
Yes.
Chair
What is the maximum number of employees who could be covered by one QS?
Emma Clancy
There is no maximum number, but the system requires adequate supervision, so it would be dictated by that.
Chair
So what does that mean? As a scheme operator, do you determine that, or do you leave it to the company?
Emma Clancy
Our assessors determine that.
Chair
Therefore, they must have some guidelines.
Emma Clancy
Indeed they do.
Chair
What are the guidelines?
Emma Clancy
It is their judgment. They look at the work, the geographical spread, the complexity of the work—
Chair
What is the maximum number?
Emma Clancy
I cannot give you a maximum number.
Chair
Could you give me a number in writing?
Emma Clancy
I can outline to you the criteria that we consider. Yes, of course. I am very happy to do that.
Chair
Could you tell me the maximum number in any company that is a member of your organisation?
Emma Clancy
Yes, I can definitely do that. Of course I can describe that.
Bob Blackman
Since our original inquiry, progress seems to be being made on moving to a single register. When are we going to see the single register?
Emma Clancy
Indeed, progress has been made. We have listened very carefully to the concerns of the Committee and have decided that we can create one register underpinning a mark that we believe it will be easy for consumers to identify. That will apply across all the scheme operators that exist currently, not just NAPIT and what exists now but also the six or so other scheme operators. We have a meeting with the Minister next week—we want to talk to him to make sure it has his blessing as a way forward—and then we will move as swiftly as possible. At that point, we will find a way to either take down or reference the existing two registers into the new site.
Bob Blackman
So, assuming the Minister gives his blessing next week, when will we see it in operation?
Emma Clancy
I do not see any reason why it could not be within the next six months.
Bob Blackman
Why is it going to take six months? The standards are there. You have to agree a set of common standards, presumably, but why six months? Why not next month?
Emma Clancy
I would hope it would be quicker than that, but obviously, as we have said before, it is not just about a list of names. It is about making sure that we are representing people correctly, and that we have dealt with all the data issues associated with that. I am just giving us a little bit of time to do the proper job.
David Cowburn
That would include registering the mark itself. We need to protect that mark so we can act legally if it is misused.
Bob Blackman
So are we going to see a quality mark first, followed by the merging of registers, or is this all going to be one proper register, so I as a consumer and other consumers out there can look and say, “Yes, all these people are competent persons according to one register and one set of criteria, not two different sets”?
Emma Clancy
It would be a register based around the competent person scheme requirements and the one that you have requested, but with a— [Interruption.]
Chair
Saved by the bell. Thank you all very much for coming to give us evidence once again on this very important issue. That brings us to the end of the public proceedings. Oral evidence: Building Regulations, HC 906 36