The clear success of Part P

[Andy Wade]

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

[Andy Burns]

Hrrrmph!

[Staffbull]

> --

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)

[Andy Cap]

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

[Staffbull]

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.

[dom]

Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

[meow2222]

http://www.publicati> Pity it doesn't differentiate between equipment and installations.

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

NT

[MikeH]

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

[Andy Hall]

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

[Stuart]

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

[Stuart]

" use or misuse of electrical equipment and "

[Andy Wade]

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

[unopened]

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

[dennis]

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.

[Staffbull]

>

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 :-)

[unopened]

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

Not ostensibly

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

[meow2222]

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.

see above

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

[Clive George]

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

[Andy Cap]

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

[Guy King]

The message from "Clive George" contains these words:

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.