"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:24:37 +0100, "IMM" wrote:



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.

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe yes. that was the case. Initially to join CORGI, you only needed to
provide a C&Q qualification. I think they even accepted plumbing C&G. It
was voluntary. The boards had strict tarining and qualification levels.

Again there is the point even in the old system
that there was not independent accountability.

That was so, but the safety level of the gas boards spoke for itself. CORGI
was to eliminate cowboy idepenedet ooperatiors. In the klate 1960s/early
1970s there were many explosions, none down to the gas boards, so action was
taken, and CORGI came about.

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.

Presumably this is why there are arrangements for employers to be
registered and for operatives not to have their own registration. If
the employer is investing in training they should have a way to
protect that investment rather than just training for their
competitors or for people to set up on their own without cost.


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.

Fine, but if they are still within the organisation, where are the
independent checks and balances? I'm not suggesting that
skulduggery goes on but the temptation and opprotunity is there.

In a privatised money grabbing world there is.

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.

Other firms of heating engineers? Outside CORGI control?

Don't know of any, and none are that big.

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.

Although size is not a predictor of quality, the model that is being
done for other industries is fairer.

Size means they will the resource.

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.

That's true.



.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl