"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:23:07 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:46:14 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


"raden" wrote in message





They did, but then realised how much it was costing, so they said
(in a
nutshell) we're not going to register our fitters anymore, what are
you
going to do about it?

I don't blame them. To men who are C&G qualified and have been
working
in
the industry, why should they pay for a certificate to prove what they
already know.


At that level neither do I. However, if this is what is happening,
then their employer is breaking the law if the employees are relying
on his registration and don't have their own.

I can't find anything in the GSIU regulations or HSE guidelines that
exempts BG. At the least it gives them an unfair commercial advantage
if they don't have to do the same as everybody else.

Either Transco or BG, have minimum recruitment standards. They don't
take
on plumbers and the likes with a CORGI certificate, which heating
companies
would do.

The old Gas Boards would not take on anyone with C&G, or the modern
equiv.
Many would only recruit people they had actually trained and were
returning.

That's all fine, but my point was really about why they should be
exempted from the law.

They were there first. CORGI came about to get rid of cowboy operators. The
old gas boards were not cowboy operators. The likes of BG/Transco has a
monopoly, so they should specify a minimum training level, and quals, and
that is it. Then CORGI gives a certificate to Transco/BG men. It is
ludicrous that they should pay to sit a test if they leave.

It can be that BG have excellent
training and supervision arrangements
- they probably do - and that CORGI
does not do a good job of
supervision and manages by exception -
i.e. acts when there are
complaints.

BG/Transco have QA depts, so are monitoring quality.

However, it is inconsistent if BG is effectively allowed to run their
own self certifying arrangement while others are not.

They can, it depends on how big they are.

Either everybody should be self
certifying (which was deemed not to be
good enough, hence CORGI) or they
should be regulated by an
independent body.

An independent body can monitor how self certification is being implemented
in organisations. SElf certification may only be to organisations of a
minimum size.

Having just one "independent" body
like CORGI seems unsatisfactory as
it is more like a trade association than
an independent regulator -
there should at least be more than one
or a genuinely independent organisation.

Equally, if BG is effectively operating a
self certifying arrangement,
where are the independent controls?
They are not the "old gas board"
any more but a commercial operation,
and if they are self certifying
there is a potential conflict of interest.

The system needs updating.