From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

--
Andy

Andy Wade wrote:

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

Hrrrmph!

Andy Wade wrote:
From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

--
Andy

My take on it is, around here anyway, most people who are trying to get
some minor electrical work done when pricing it have found that prices
have gone astronomical for minor works and the sparkies are ranting
part P for the price hike ( nicel little earner!!) so they are more
tempted to "have a go" and say nowt to local authority.
So for safety its not working, but for making money for some
electricians it is ( not all, before flaming commences)

On 23 Nov 2006 01:50:12 -0800, "Staffbull" wrote:


My take on it is, around here anyway, most people who are trying to get
some minor electrical work done when pricing it have found that prices
have gone astronomical for minor works and the sparkies are ranting
part P for the price hike ( nicel little earner!!) so they are more
tempted to "have a go" and say nowt to local authority.
So for safety its not working, but for making money for some
electricians it is ( not all, before flaming commences)

It was always likely that it would deter many people from updating their gear,
which the vast majority did reasonbly safely and force them back towards using
adapters and extension leads or worse still ignore deterioration indefinitely,
which is all far more dangerous.

Andy

Andy Cap wrote:
On 23 Nov 2006 01:50:12 -0800, "Staffbull" wrote:


My take on it is, around here anyway, most people who are trying to get
some minor electrical work done when pricing it have found that prices
have gone astronomical for minor works and the sparkies are ranting
part P for the price hike ( nicel little earner!!) so they are more
tempted to "have a go" and say nowt to local authority.
So for safety its not working, but for making money for some
electricians it is ( not all, before flaming commences)

It was always likely that it would deter many people from updating their gear,
which the vast majority did reasonbly safely and force them back towards using
adapters and extension leads or worse still ignore deterioration indefinitely,
which is all far more dangerous.

Andy

You never know they might backpedal on Part P like the CSA!!!, But part
P hasnt cost them hunderds of millions, oh and there is the NHS
centralised computer system that cost umpteen millions thats in the
process of being scrapped.
All exellent government decisions, Monster Raving Loony party gets my
vote next time as the UK is screwed under the so called intellectual
parties!!
I long for the day Wales is devoluted from the bloody idiots who have
governed our country sine October 2, 1283.

Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

Andy Wade wrote:
From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

Its a success because the govt is now taking more money of the people.
Which is all it was for in the first place.

dom wrote:
Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

That would be risky, it might tell the real story.


NT

Staffbull wrote:
I long for the day Wales is devoluted from the bloody idiots who have
governed our country sine October 2, 1283.

You have my sympathies, but I suspect that Welsh politicians and
bureaucrats will screw things up just as much as those of any other
nationality.

Mike

On 2006-11-23 09:35:25 +0000, Andy Wade said:

From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five
years due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical
equipment and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

Oh

wonderful. I know somebody who will love this as yet another example
of pointless over-regulation.

On 23 Nov 2006 02:47:35 -0800, " wrote:

Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

Exactly .They could all have been things that Part Pee has nothing to do with .

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:35:25 +0000, Andy Wade
wrote:

From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

He should have left this part out of his question .

" use or misuse of electrical equipment and "

Andy Hall wrote:

wonderful. I know somebody who will love this as yet another example
of pointless over-regulation.

Would that be the Rt. Hon. member for Wokingham, by any chance?

--
Andy

Andy Wade wrote:

From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18


The figures clearly demonstrate that the so-called 'Part P' legislation
is not draconian enough, and therefore support the necessity of
bringing in further regulation to further enhance the safety of people
in their homes.

I expect the sale and use of extension leads and multi-way adapters to
be banned.

Sid

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment and
electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or misuse
of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.
It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
done on the side.

I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
tax increases by a few million.

wrote:
Andy Wade wrote:

From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18


The figures clearly demonstrate that the so-called 'Part P' legislation
is not draconian enough, and therefore support the necessity of
bringing in further regulation to further enhance the safety of people
in their homes.

I expect the sale and use of extension leads and multi-way adapters to
be banned.

Sid

While we are at it why not get local authorities to check each
household once a year for electrical safety and charge us a few hundred
quid each, any anomalies need to be rectified within seven days through
a registered electrician from a list in the LA or a fine will be
issued.

I might run for election, I can come up with draconian crap useless
legislation ideas as well :-)

dennis@home wrote:



Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
done on the side.

Not ostensibly


I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
tax increases by a few million.

A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
railways and the roads. If, by raising x million by allowing y more
deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm. Off topic for
uk.d-i-y.

Regards,

Sid

wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.


It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
done on the side.

Not ostensibly

see above


I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
tax increases by a few million.

A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
railways and the roads. If, by raising x million by allowing y more
deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm. Off topic for
uk.d-i-y.

Regards,

Sid

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.


NT

wrote in message
oups.com...

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
safer. They may have introduced a scheme which helps prevent people evading
tax, but that is definitely not the same as introducing a new tax.

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
presenting is completely bogus.

cheers,
clive

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:44:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
presenting is completely bogus.

cheers,
clive

Surely, if people are forced to use professional labour, for something they can
quite well do themselves, then they ARE being forced to pay unnecessary VAT !

Andy

The message
from "Clive George" contains these words:

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
safer.

Yes they have. Where before you could do the work yourself, and thereby
not pay tax on the work 'cos it's DIY, now you have to[1] employ someone
else to do it. Income tax, National Insurance and VAT are then payable
on the money that changes hands.

[1] OK, I know that it's possible to get round Part P by doing it
through Building Control but many people either don't know that or can't
be arsed.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Clive George wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
safer. They may have introduced a scheme which helps prevent people evading
tax, but that is definitely not the same as introducing a new tax.

Preventing tax evasion at the (alleged) cost of more lives lost is not
a lot different - I think it is just semantics, though.

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
presenting is completely bogus.

I think an argument (valid or not) against Part P is that it encourages
people to neglect their electrical safety as Part P makes the cost of
complying higher than many people wish to pay.

If the government paid all the costs of an electrician testing domestic
installations + the cost of any remedial works for faults found, and
paid you £100 for being a good citizen every time you requested such
services, it would be very popular indeed. It would also be very
expensive for the government, and therefore, us.

Part P was brought in on the (possibly spurious) grounds of improving
the electrical safety of fixed domestic installations. The fact that it
had the (offically) completely unexpected side effect of reducing tax
evasion is (officially) neither here nor there, but the Treasury are
not unhappy.

Just be glad that the European Court decided that we couldn't by
toboacco and alcoholic beverages online and by mail order from other EU
countries at their duty rates today. If the decision had been
otherwise, the government would have been looking at creative methods
of filling a £12 billion hole in the public finances.

Sid

wrote in message
ups.com...

8

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as
the
tax increases by a few million.

A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
railways and the roads. If, by raising x million by allowing y more
deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm.

They already do that by taking money from road schemes to make rail safer.
This saves about 4 deaths a year but would save about 500+ if spent on the
roads.

Off topic for
uk.d-i-y.

Most of the stuff is OT AFAICS.

"Stuart" wrote in message
...
On 23 Nov 2006 02:47:35 -0800, " wrote:

Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

Exactly .They could all have been things that Part Pee has nothing to do
with .

Possible but if it's difficult to extend your fixed wiring in your kitchen
or lay an armoured cable to your shed, the alternative becomes trailing
sockets or extension leads using Part P approved socket outlets from B&Q.

I would actually expect more deaths from "non-fixed" installations instead.

It is crass and sad that you can't easily fit an RCD to your own system.

Hey that's progress in a Nanny state.

On 2006-11-23 12:17:05 +0000, Andy Wade said:

Andy Hall wrote:

wonderful. I know somebody who will love this as yet another example
of pointless over-regulation.

Would that be the Rt. Hon. member for Wokingham, by any chance?

I couldn't possibly comment.....

On 2006-11-23 15:38:17 +0000, said:

wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.


In reality there was not a lot of public support or objection in either
direction. I made my submissions about it, as did a number of others
here to the government department at the time as well as writing to my
MP about it and discussing it with him.

A set of letters came back from the minister at the time (Raynsford)
from which it was pretty clear that he was not at all well informed on
the issues surrounding part P.

Overall, on the basis of the subject matter, it didn't get a lot of
governmental attention. However, it is hard to pinpoint whether or
not there was political influence behind the selective use of the
information presented to the civil servants and others involved in the
RIA. Certainly it wasn't well balanced at all, and it was very clear
that there had been extensive lobbying by the various trade
organisations who stood to gain financially as well as influentially.

Had it not been for the death of an MP's daughter as a result of a
wiring issue that would not have been addressed by part P; there would
have been little media attention either.

In the sense that this has been one of a series of measures where trade
associations of various types have been invited to or have pushed for
being the framework for self certification in respect to various
construction industry; one can suspect that a motivation for Part P has
been as a means of control and tax take; although no more than any of
the other self certification schemes.

In the meantime, Mr Raynsford has become somewhat more disengaged
politically, but is chairman of the Construction Industry Council and
of the NHBC foundation, so continues to make his mark on the sector.
Nevertheless he did find time to attend, with his wife, a performance
of the Barber of Seville and dinner as guest of Arup Group earlier this
year.

On 2006-11-23 15:44:23 +0000, "Clive George" said:

wrote in message
oups.com...

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their
houses safer. They may have introduced a scheme which helps prevent
people evading tax, but that is definitely not the same as introducing
a new tax.

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument
you're presenting is completely bogus.

cheers,
clive

Actually it isn't. In terms of whether somebody in Westminster sat
down and specifically decided that introducing regulation around fixed
electrical installation as a means of tax take, probably not.

From letters that I have had from the minister of the time, via my MP,
it is pretty clear that the minister was not versed to any level of
detail at all about what was going on.

However..... this is one of a series of measures for the construction
industry whereby there is some form of self certification via members
of various trade associations. Since there is registration of work
done, in addition to membership of said trade organisations, it does
form a vehicle by which a proportion of construction industry
tradespeople are brought into a framework in which they can be tracked
for tax and other purposes.

I am sure that the industry will always have the cowboys and the tax
evaders; but in terms of the tax take, it will have certainly
contributed to the exchequer. There is certainly a political
motivation to do that.

On 2006-11-23 16:01:34 +0000, Andy Cap said:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 15:44:23 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument
you're presenting is completely bogus.

cheers,
clive

Surely, if people are forced to use professional labour, for something they can
quite well do themselves, then they ARE being forced to pay unnecessary VAT !

Andy

The two are not connected directly. Whether or not a contractor has
to register for and charge VAT is determined on a mandatory level by a
certain level of revenue in his business, or at levels below that,
voluntarily.

On 2006-11-23 16:20:33 +0000, Guy King said:

The message
from "Clive George" contains these words:

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses safer.

Yes they have. Where before you could do the work yourself, and thereby
not pay tax on the work 'cos it's DIY, now you have to[1] employ someone
else to do it. Income tax, National Insurance and VAT are then payable
on the money that changes hands.

In respect of VAT, not necessarily.

I agree that someone operating outside the system would not want to
register for VAT any more than join a trade association in order to
self certify - either or both brings him into contact with officialdom.

However, if he purchased materials, he would have paid VAT then, just
as now, and would pass that on to the end customer.

The difference would be that if his annual revenue is greater than the
VAT threshold, he would now have to register for VAT (whereas before he
might have ducked it). The effect to the customer would be the VAT on
his labour.

OTOH, if he is below the threshold, it won't have made a difference.





[1] OK, I know that it's possible to get round Part P by doing it
through Building Control but many people either don't know that or can't
be arsed.

Clive George wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

If the govt wanted to raise money it ought to ask the people first,
presenting the reasons for it, and raise it from a tax on something bad
in some way. As it is, theyve taxed people making their houses safer,
causing unnecessary deaths. Why? You figure it out.

I don't get this argument. They haven't taxed people making their houses
safer. They may have introduced a scheme which helps prevent people evading
tax, but that is definitely not the same as introducing a new tax.

I think Part P is crap for various reasons, but the 'tax' argument you're
presenting is completely bogus.

cheers,
clive

If I rewire my house I'll have to pay extra fees associated with part
pee now. Thats clearly a tax on safety.


NT

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2006-11-23 15:44:23 +0000, "Clive George"
said:


However..... this is one of a series of measures for the construction
industry whereby there is some form of self certification via members of
various trade associations. Since there is registration of work done,
in addition to membership of said trade organisations, it does form a
vehicle by which a proportion of construction industry tradespeople are
brought into a framework in which they can be tracked for tax and other
purposes.

I am sure that the industry will always have the cowboys and the tax
evaders; but in terms of the tax take, it will have certainly contributed
to the exchequer. There is certainly a political motivation to do that.


Ironically for new builds there is no need for any self certification and
any cowboy can do the work. Yes I know there is the CIS framework but that
doesn't stop a jack of any trades to do the wiring.

Building control will be needed for a new build so the wiring can just be
added to that at no extra cost.

In article .com,
wrote:
If I rewire my house I'll have to pay extra fees associated with part
pee now. Thats clearly a tax on safety.

Not when you put it like that. You're paying to have your amateur
workmanship checked by a professional.

--
*A day without sunshine is like... night.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Not when you put it like that. You're paying to have your amateur
workmanship checked by a professional.

On the scale of quality of result, there is an overlap between amateur
and professional. At least some amateurs are capable of better quality
than at least some professionals - there is no hard and fast dividing
line. The problem is that all amateurs are regarded officially as
incompetent, and all professionals competent, which is demonstrably not
the case.

To give some analogous examples:

I am not a professional cook. I have sampled the output of
professionally qualified cooks, and quality has varied wildly, from the
nearly inedible to the sublime. The meals I produce are indubitably
better than the worst I have sampled produced by professionals.

I am not a professional nurse. I have both experienced the care of
professional nurses, and seen those close to me cared for by
professional nurses. I have also seen non-professional nursing of the
long-term ill. I would say the non-professional care I have seen was
of higher quality - including ensuring the correct dosage of
mediacation was supplied and taken; and taken at appropriate times.

I am not a professional driver. The standard of driving on the roads is
such that I prefer not to be driven by professional minicab drivers,
having feared for my life on several occaisions due the appaling
quality of their driving. Bus drivers vary wildly from the excellent to
the appalling, as do heavy goods vehicle drivers.

In the above cases the amateur often has a lower workload, and is not
constrained by economic considerations, so can take the time and
trouble to do a good job. Obviously, there are utterly incompetent
amateurs for all of the above examples. Please note that I am not
trying to equate the difficulty of performing as a professional
electrician with any of the above jobs, merely illustrating the point.

The main thing that engaging a professional does is provide a means of
comeback if a substandard job is performed. It certainly does not
guarantee a minimum standard of performance, contrary to the claims of
many people.

In other European countries, if you make a modification to your
domestic fixed electrical installation, and your house burns down as a
result, your insurance is invalid. If an electrician had made exactly
the same modification, and the house burns down as a result, you claim
against the electrician's insurance. Competence does not come in to
it.

Competent amateurs are in a bind because they have no way of mitigating
the risk of having done a substandard job.

Sid

Staffbull wrote:
wrote:
Andy Wade wrote:

From Hansard:

Communities and Local Government
Accidents (Electrical Equipment)

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government how many fatalities there were in each of the last five years
due to home accidents caused by use or misuse of electrical equipment
and electrical installations. [98144]

Jim Fitzpatrick: I have been asked to reply.

The numbers of fatalities over the last five years are shown in the
following table.

Fatalities due to home accidents in Great Britain caused by use or
misuse of electrical equipment and electrical installations

Number of home accidents

2001-02 (1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002) 4
2002-03 (1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003) 5
2003-04 (1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004) 3
2004-05 (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005) 10
2005-06 (1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006) 13

http://www.publications.parliament.u...8.htm#dpthd_18

The figures clearly demonstrate that the so-called 'Part P' legislation
is not draconian enough, and therefore support the necessity of
bringing in further regulation to further enhance the safety of people
in their homes.

I expect the sale and use of extension leads and multi-way adapters to
be banned.

Sid

While we are at it why not get local authorities to check each
household once a year for electrical safety and charge us a few hundred
quid each, any anomalies need to be rectified within seven days through
a registered electrician from a list in the LA or a fine will be
issued.
NononNO. No one will be able to BUY an appliance with a 13A plug in it
unless their ID cards show they have 5 science A levels.


I might run for election, I can come up with draconian crap useless
legislation ideas as well :-)

wrote:
dennis@home wrote:



Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

It was done to increase tax revenue by cutting down on the number of jobs
done on the side.

Not ostensibly

I have seen no figures to say if it has been successful.

The 6 extra deaths a year are insignificant to the government as long as the
tax increases by a few million.

A very interesting point. Authorities decide on spending money, raised
by taxation, on the basis of the number of lives saved in the NHS, the
railways and the roads.

You are joking surely?

Most "road safety" measures are their to incerease revenue and add to
congestion, so they can justify a further 'congestion charge'


If, by raising x million by allowing y more
deaths, then spending that x million to save z lives, would a
government be morally justified in taking the actions that allow the y
more deaths so long a z were greater than y? Hmm. Off topic for
uk.d-i-y.

Regards,

Sid

In article om,
wrote:
Not when you put it like that. You're paying to have your amateur
workmanship checked by a professional.

On the scale of quality of result, there is an overlap between amateur
and professional. At least some amateurs are capable of better quality
than at least some professionals - there is no hard and fast dividing
line. The problem is that all amateurs are regarded officially as
incompetent, and all professionals competent, which is demonstrably not
the case.

Indeed. However, there's no need to 'catch' the competent amateur. There
may be if he isn't. And the same applies to so called pros. That's the
theory behind certification. Of course like many theories it doesn't quite
do what it's meant to in practice.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

If I rewire my house I'll have to pay extra fees associated with part
pee now. Thats clearly a tax on safety.

Not when you put it like that. You're paying to have your amateur
workmanship checked by a professional.

(At excessive rates.) This is a tax because there is no reason to do
such work checks. Why? One might imagine there is need, but the death
rates show there is not. The death stats really are that plain (bear in
mind nearly all those quoted died from appliance faults, not fixed
wiring faults).

Whether someone works for money or for themselvs and how competent
someone is are 2 different things. I've lost count of the number of
professional sparks I've asked simple questions, only to hear how
little they really know.

There is of course also the question of why able and sometimes well
qualified people would need their work to be checked by the variably
capable and sometimes less qualified, esp in an area where death rate
tends to zero, and the work done by jo public has been shown by these
numbers to be not a safety problem in practice. Really its not
justified.

Lastly there is the reality that people greatly improving the safety of
their older installs will have significant costs added on for no
real-world gain, and this will result in less people doing the work,
thus greater dangers. You can couch it in terms that make it sound like
a check to improve safety, but the disappointing reality is more people
will die as a result of it, not less. Thus its nothing more than a tax
with occasionally fatal results. Ie a tax on safety.


NT

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-11-23 15:38:17 +0000, said:
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.

In reality there was not a lot of public support or objection in either
direction.

This is because public acceptance was manufactured by misrepresenting
it as a safety policy. Had the truth been told people woud have shouted
'no way.'


NT

wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-11-23 15:38:17 +0000, said:
wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

Part P wasn't designed to cut accidents.

But that was presented as part of the justification for it.

of course, the public would have objected if theyd said it was a tax
gathering move. So they made something up to obtain peoples support for
it, or acceptance of it. Politics as usual.

In reality there was not a lot of public support or objection in either
direction.

This is because public acceptance was manufactured by misrepresenting
it as a safety policy. Had the truth been told people woud have shouted
'no way.'


Basically the same could be said of any Nu Laber policy.


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
8----
NononNO. No one will be able to BUY an appliance with a 13A plug in it
unless their ID cards show they have 5 science A levels.

8----

Then the masses will need 5 science A levels - and they can't be denied.
So the A level certificates will come with the appliance and ID cards will
be updated at the checkout. Of course the checkout operator will ask three
testing questions to validate these qualifications:
Do you want to pay Cash? y/n
Do you want to take it with you? y/n
Do you want our extra warranty? y/n

And for foreigners (and those without an id card) the checkout operator has
an Anybody@Anywhere card which also confers VAT exemption.

Edgar

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
wrote:
If I rewire my house I'll have to pay extra fees associated with part
pee now. Thats clearly a tax on safety.

Not when you put it like that. You're paying to have your amateur
workmanship checked by a professional.


In my case, I'm about as qualified as you can be to re-wire a house etc.
Most professionals haven't a clue why the rules are made out the way they
are. Most of the committee sanctioning the rules are no longer allowed to
put safety devices or add extra circuits to their houses.

If it was just about qualifications then I would agree with you, but it's
not. It's about self interested associations receiving lots of money from
their membership and certainly not safety.

Miraculously deaths associated with fixed wiring are very rare. Therefore
the investment vs cost could be better put elsewhere.

The sad thing for me is this death of an MP's daughter: The principle
published error is that the wiring was sunk into a bathroom wall was in a
diagonal fashion. But in fact a number of things have gone wrong.

1 The old regs allowed metal channelling to be used which need not be
earthed. Newer regs insist that metal channelling is earthed, the principle
result is that PVC channelling is used. A masonry drill will stop at
galvanised steel channelling whereas it will go straight through PVC. How
many deaths were related to unearthed channelling. I'd put money on it
being very few.

2 The person fitting the towel rail didn't check for power under the
surface. In my eyes he's the main culprit for drilling into a wall where he
hadn't got a clue what was underneath the plaster. Bit like doing 70 in
thick fog.

3 A tingling sensation was felt on the rail but no one thought to
question it! - Astounding - and in a bathroom!

4 If an RCD was fitted it might have saved her life.

Ironically I can't fit an RCD to my wiring because of Part P without paying
exorbitant fees from either Building Control, or a professional cowboy.

You're not someone who would call that progress are you?