Owain wrote:

... Well, not exactly.

But the Government's report on the consultation process and the Regulatory
Impact Assessment includes:

91. The RIA was criticised by 89% of those who gave an opinion on the
document. The primary concern was the inclusion of accident figures from
portable and non-portable appliances when Approved Document P is only
applicable to fixed electrical installations. Table 1a in the RIA shows that
76% of fatal accidents and 74% of non-fatal accidents will not be directly
affected by the introduction of the Part P proposals as they are not part of
the fixed installation and hence outside the scope.
92. The public respondents focussed on the cost of the small number of
accidents attributable to fixed installations (approximately 24% of
fatalities and 26% of non-fatal accidents) and suggested that the savings in
Table 2 in the RIA should exclude portable and non-portable appliances,
making a saving of only £38m rather than £104m for an average of 2.6 deaths
and 447 accidents per year. Whilst commenting on savings, some respondents
queried the source of the 20% saving in accidents quoted in paragraph 33 of
the RIA.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-06.hcsp#P233_39101

And if anyone doubted where support for Part P comes from:

07. There were 206 letters to the ODPM supporting Part P, mostly
electrical contractors and 142 letters to Members of Parliament, again from
electrical contractors, requesting their support for Part P in Parliament.
...
17. Views expressed on DIY work on quality and safety issues are
(numerically) divided in the consultation. Those respondents who support DIY
suggest that more information should be given at DIY outlets and cheaper
instruments made available to improve quality and compliance of the DIY
installation with good practice. The industry and safety regulators believe
that the most dangerous installations are those undertaken by DIY workers
and un-qualified practitioners. It is further suggested that these are the
installations which would not be inspected and tested by qualified persons
unless the owner asked for the inspection and tests.
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou.../page/odpm_bre
g_023509-07.hcsp#P246_42355

Owain


I saw an item on yesterday's TV news in which a lady who had tragically
lost her daughter was used to support the new regs. There is no way
they would have helped her, as there is no retrospective testing. Also
she said the extra cost of £5 to £10 for the extra work involved was
well worth it. Who gave her the figures? I cannot believe them
accurate, while I have every sympathy with the lady I realy believe she
was being used for pure propaganda by cynical officials.