Part P: Date stamping accessories ?

[Mark Carver]

I've heard two people mention to me now that from April 2005 all electrical accessories sold will be date stamped, to give some form of traceability for electrical installation work ?

True or urban myth ?

[John Borman]

If so start getting your orders in with screwfix.

[sid]

Well, if its cable then perhaps. Nothing to stop you changing all your socket outlets, ceiling connectors etc. In fact its a good idea to renew ceiling rose connectors and cable. Heat from the bulbs does degrade the PVC.

From a safety point of view I would certainly consider renewal of socket outlets and other accessories after 10 years or so.

Restriction do apply to bathroome, kitchens etc. Contact building control for what is allowed without notification.

Even if Part P was not going to come into force I would still get a qualified elecrican to check and certify any major work. Its common sense to ensure that the work carried out is safe, its going to be there for a long time!

[Peter Stockdale]

For an angle grinder perhaps !

Pete

[Andrew Gabriel]

I think it's been true since before Part P was mooted. Probably everything I've bought in the last ~3 years is date stamped.

Yesterday, I fitted a replacement consumer unit. The MCB's I just bought to go in it had various dates in 2003 and 2004 on them, but some I bought in 1999 for something else and didn't use until just now have no date stamp on them.

Looking at various cable reel ends, Pirrelli seems to have been date stamping since at least 2002. Rumaging in a box of faceplates and junction boxes, Wickes seem to have been date stamping their faceplaces and junction boxes since at least 2002. In both cases this might have started much earlier, but I have no older samples with dates.

I doubt this has anything to do with Part P.

[Bolted]

And if it did, it could not prove anything anyway. All a later date-stamp proves is that someone has done something to the circuit after the date-stamp. Thar doesn't mean to say it wasn't a minor, or a series of minor changes that are OK under part P. Isn't replacing a socket an example of something too minor to be covered? If one is, then they all are. It can't prove that the work was done after P_day. Unless they start date stamping the wire.

[Alan]

I have some T&E cable which the date *is* stamped along the length at regular intervals, along with the BS codes and manufacturer's details. Old colours though - but I expect new colour cable to be stamped in the same way.

Alan.

[Peter Stockdale]

Has it not already been explained in another thread here that the colour coding of the wire is also to change ? A dead giveaway that the work has been done after a certain date, hence previous suggestion that everybody stocks up with "old type" cable a.s.a.p. Regards Pete

[Bob Eager]

Not, it's not. The new colours are already available, so it could still be argued that the work preceded Jan 1 2005.

[Mike Harrison]

Sounds like a myth to me - how would this be implemented ? Makers would only do it if they were legally compelled to as it costs money. I think it would probably take an EU directive to force makers to do this, as part of CE marking requirements. An attempt by the UK to do it alone would probably contravene single-market rules. And anyway, most marks could be removed prety easily if necessary....

[Tony Bryer]

More than a few firms do it for QA reasons. I've come across PVC cable recently that has the year embossed in the sheath.

[Dave]

as part of CE marking

OK now! This is my stupid question time :-)

How does an EU directive become entrenched in English law?

I never had a chance to elect an MP on the back of it. I never had a say in its composition and as far as I can remember, I never let go of any ability to allow the EU to legislate this way.

As I say, a stupid question, but...

Dave

[Andy Hall]

Because the majority of the electorate gave the government what the government believe[s|d] [is|was] a mandate to do so. THe same as for part P......

[Dave Plowman (News)]

When did you ever have an input into UK law either?

Apart from some of the 'something must be done' gut reaction 'laws' of late which are invariably poor ones and badly thought through.

[Stefek Zaba]

Nothing stupid about it. Legally, the UK parliament continues to be sovereign, and the only source of law. Every country which joins the EU, as we have done, takes on a treaty obligation - "club rules" - to transpose EU-agreed directives into its own national law.

Directives vary in how much flexibility they leave to member states - some don't leave much room for variation, others have a fair bit of room for differing mechanisms to achieve a stated goal, and the more recent trend is along the lines of stating goals and suggesting mechanisms rather than trying to "legislate" to the last dotted-i and crossed-t.

In practice in the UK, the "transposition" process is relatively direct and mechanical, done mainly by civil servants in the lead department for a given Directive, with relatively little debate in t'Chamber. But there are notable exceptions to that usual technocratic picture, where some directive affects a Cherished Aspect Of National Life and an MP or party thinks it can get some populist headlines by Taking A Stand.

The much more effective time to influence EU policy is not at the far end of the process where directives are being implemented, but in the early policy-formulation debates in the Commission and when the Commission proposals are going through the European Parliament. The UK government/administration is (these days) fairly clued up about how that game is played; it's full of horse-trading, shifting allegiances, fashions, meetings in corridors and restaurants - all the usual business of politics. Some Westminster MPs (either as backbenchers or as part of their ministerial responsibilities) get usefuly engaged in that process, and if you want to exert influence it's worth keeping an eye on the relevant "consultation" exercises, and/or working through whatever UK interest group (whether it's the Federation of Small Businesses or Greenpeace) shares your interests. Because of the horse-trading way that things are done, though, some of the most effective interventions are ones you can't then shout about...

uk? well, this is about the uk. d-i-y? well, "getting involved" is d-int it y-self, right? ;-)

[Stefek Zaba]

In case anyone's still awake... the UK doesn't in all cases pass Brand New Laws in order to transpose EU-agreed directives; as often as not, there's already "primary" legislation in place regulating some area or other, and the transposition/enactment requires only changes to secondary regulations which go through Parliament on the nod (i.e. unless some MP bothers to object), or by a regulatory body or industry association changing its code of conduct or similar semi-legislative action.

More turkey-puff-pastry-pie, more brandy, and more sleep...

[Tony Bryer]

In our local newspaper today

"Dr Tonge [LibDem MP Richmond Park] said she discovered that the new regulations come into force on January 1: "They have asked me to head up the campaign to make all consumers aware of the new regulations. Having been involved so directly in such a terrible tragedy, I strongly support any initiative which might reduce the number of deaths, injuries and fires caused by unsafe electrical wiring.""

[Frank Erskine]

electrical installations.

However, the Times says that 10 people die of the same causes.

Who are we to believe?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The slight snag is that if it puts people off from having extra sockets installed through cost - or DIYing it - there are likely to be *more* fires through overloaded extension leads or adaptors, etc. And more injuries caused by people tripping over such things.

[Stefek Zaba]

The relevant numbers are (unsurprisingly) much closer to the Thunderer's, than the local rag's reprinting of a half-digested inaccurate press release from a clueless MP whose generically half-arsed approach to thinking is further coloured by involvment in a (more or less freak) family tragedy relevant to electrical safety.

In RoSPA's own pro-regulatory statement, now at

read as follows:

"There was an increase in electrical injuries in the home involving fixed appliances, particularly portable equipment between 1990 and 1998, but the ownership of such appliances also rose considerably during the period."

There's a highly relevant and fundamental confusion here between "fixed appliances" and "portable equipment". These are mutually exclusive categories - so how can portable equipment be a "particular" sub-case of "fixed appliances"? They probably mean "electrical appliances", of which portable equipment is indeed a sub-case - and which account for the majority of deaths, as we read in the rest of the paragraph:

"Fixed electrical installations were involved in around 5 fatalities and

576 non-fatal injuries each year in England and Wales between 1990 and 1998. Non-portable and portable equipment were involved in 14 fatalities and 1,700 non-fatal injuries during the same period."

So far, then, we're talking about less than 20 deaths a year. Only a quarter of these are relevant to Part P issues - product safety is what determines the safety-of-construction for appliances, whether fixed or portable; while what actually causes the deaths and injuries is (however incorrect it is to say so) idiocy on the part of ordinary people doing extraordinarily daft things.

Well, 5-deaths-a-year is a bit too low to get a major campaign going. So what else can RoSPA add to the mix? Ahh - let's reach across to fires where electrical faults appear to be the cause. Let's not worry too much about the difference between "appear to be" and "have been established to be beyond reasonable doubt" - most fire-investigator types are pretty thorough and don't tend to incant "oh it must've been electrical" without at least some decent evidence of a major contribution from something electrical. So we read further:

"around 25 die and 590 are injured as a result of fires caused by faulty electrical equipment and wiring each year in England and Wales in the

12,500 fires each year reported as having an electrical source of ignition."

That's useful - if we can suggest there are more deaths and lots-and-lots of fires caused by Electrical Stuff, then the argument for Doing Something is strengthened.

But what's missing from the figures on fires? Well, there's no breakdown for fixed-wiring-faults - as addressed by Part P - compared to use-of-appliance faults. And as far as I understand it, those fires "reported as having an electrical source of ignition" includes the common idiocy of covering up electrical heaters with clothes (to dry them) to the point where the heater ignites the clothes. And they'd include overloading sockets, using poorly-fitting mains extensions, and quite possibly kitchen fires (chip pans and the like) where the cooking appliance is electrical. And lint catching fire in tumble dryers.

So, we have 5 fatalities a year caused by fixed-wiring faults, plus an unknown proportion of 25 fire-related ones. If it's as much as half of the latter (quite unlikely IMHO), that's 20 deaths - double the Times figure. If it's one-in-5, then we get the Times figure of 10 in total.

Even at 20, that's two day's worth of road fatalities. Can you say "disproportionate"? Can you see there just might be another motive for this regulatory move, to do with reducing the amount of tax-avoiding cash-in-hand electrical work, which the giz-a-sub trade bodies are more than happy to line up behind?

Stefek