New vocational standards for supervising electricians

[Sparky Ninja]

The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET – The Institution of Engineering and Technology - The IET) has announced that all Qualified Supervisors will - from July 2011 - have to hold higher qualifications. An industry wide agreement means that a Level 3 qualification, or equivalent, will become the minimum technical requirement for all new applications for the position of Qualified Supervisor:

This important decision highlights the importance of reflecting the industry’s recognised standards in a Level 3 qualification. It also sets it as the benchmark for ensuring safety standards within the electrical contracting sector.

All new applications for qualifying supervisors who are legally responsible for the day-to-day technical activities of electrical companies in scope to Part P of the Building Regulations will require the new QCF Level 3 NVQ Certificate in Installing, Testing and Ensuring Compliance of Electrical Installation Work in Dwellings. This qualification will include the requirement to undertake an occupational competence assessment.

Qualified supervisors responsible for all types of electrical installation will require the new QCF Level 3 NVQ Diploma in Installing Electrotechnical Systems and Equipment (Building and Structures). This qualification will require candidates to pass an assessment of occupational competence. Qualifying supervisors responsible for all types of electrical installation will require the new QCF Level 3 NVQ Diploma in Installing Electrotechnical Systems and Equipment (Building and Structures). Again, this qualification will require candidates to pass an assessment of occupational competence. The requirements are imposed on those applying for the post of Qualified Supervisor, but will not be applied retrospectively to Qualified Supervisors already in post.

Said IET Chief Engineer, Geoff Cronshaw: “The specification was prepared as part of the support of the electrical industry - and other interested parties - in introducing better electrical safety. It is absolutely right that industry continues to make its mark on regulation. This is a positive move for the industry.”

The Electrotechnical Assessment Specification (EAS) Management Committee – chaired by the Electrical Contractors’ Association’s (ECA) Head of Technical Services, Giuliano Digilio – was involved in this universal agreement with the electrical industry partners. Giuliano Digilio commented: “The ECA welcomes this minimum technical requirement. Maintaining safe practice should be the driving force for anyone working in the electrical industry. Taking the decision to set the industry recognised Level 3 qualification as the minimum technical competence required for qualifying supervisors is a significant step towards delivering safe practice.”

David Thomas, the ECA’s Education and Training Manager said: “The ECA looks forward to the day when everybody working unsupervised on electrical installations is properly qualified to this standard.”

In another comment, Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning Minister John Hayes stated: “This is a step forward for the industry and I hope to see others follow suit. Improving skills is essential for the success and reputation of UK firms, and this Government is committed to backing employers that want to raise standards. That’s why we are reforming the skills system to make it more responsive to the needs of employers and the economy as a whole.

“Where employers believe there is a need for new professional standards to drive competitiveness, we will work with them to achieve this. A new £50 million Growth and Innovation Fund will support change, including through new occupational licensing arrangements, where it is most needed,” concluded Hayes.

The IET committee that reached the decision is made up of representatives of trade associations, including the ECA, the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Electrical Safety Council (ESC), the IET and the competent person scheme.

 

[johnboy6083]

does this apply to small companies and sole traders? ie if i was responsible for my own inspection and testing and compliance with part p, would i need another level 3 qual on top of NVQ3, 2330L3, 2382, and 2391?

thanks for the heads up mate

 

[Sparky Ninja]

It's early days but it looks like this will be the introduction for the requirement of every company needing a supervisor competent to at least level 3. It has been discussed very often as to whether joining the likes of the ECA, NICEIC etc requires having the 2391, to which this hasn't necessarily been the case. However it looks like this might be the direction they are heading..

Regarding as to if it applies to one-man bands etc, if they are seeking scheme membership then this likely to apply to you too.

However, it is early days...

 

[johnboy6083]

sounds promising then. even if i had to do another course, i wouldnt be that fussed, as long as it enforces good practice within our industry.

 

[IQ Electrical]

sounds promising then. even if i had to do another course, i wouldnt be that fussed, as long as it enforces good practice within our industry.

Yes, a positive step, probably 5 years late already....

 

[Sparky Ninja]

sounds promising then. even if i had to do another course, i wouldnt be that fussed, as long as it enforces good practice within our industry.

Yes, a positive step, probably 5 years late already....

Agree on both counts

 

[Spudnik]

It only applies to new applicants and not existing.

 

[IQ Electrical]

It only applies to new applicants and not existing.

Yes, that was what my 5 years late comment was about.

 

[johnboy6083]

if this applies to people trying to join a notification scheme, then surely they will have to have this as a condition of membership. im sure you sparks didnt want part p, so the people working out there without a level 3 qual shouldnt mind having to do this course. at the end of the day, it will make them better electricians, and more knowledgable.

it cant come soon enough in my opinion, and hopefully it will raise standards, and ensure that anybody doing the job knows the theory, and has a qual to back it up.

 

[accordfire]

Well, contrary to the "discussion" about University fees, I sincerely hope they will, for once, consider the SIZE of the company/trader making the application, in terms of proportional access.

It's all very well, and indeed, all very positive to insist on higher and higher levels of access to skill and knowledge, but in a commercial sense, how many one man bands are going to be priced out of the game completely by an increase in overheads, especially during economically austere times, while the cowboys STILL get away with it?

This seems to me, in many ways and like most other "improvement" initiatives to be a little like putting the cart in front of the horse, and bolting the door long after both the cart and the horse have beggered off down the pub.

Don't misunderstand - as most of you know, I am BIG on education and training, and BIG on the raising of standards.

I just don't think it tackles the right problem, in the right way.

Fundamentally, agencies such as the NIC, ECA, IET and beyond have to consider reality before any real benefit in what they do will be felt. If they price these things out of the reach of Mr O'mband, Sole trading Electrician Extraordinaire, then I would suggest the entire future of our industry as we know it is in jeapordy.

Let's paint an example here.

Joe Bloggs. Competent electrician, all his quals, updates and so on. Promoted through his efforts and hard work to electrical Manager or supervisor, now responsible for a team of ten other guys, variously involved in house bashing, commercial, and industrial work. He's a proud member of the team at Smiths Electrical PLC.

Smith's Electrical PLC has pulled back on staff training over the last two years, in an attempt to save costs, reduce overheads, and keep staff employed. As a result, field staff have only had the minimum required level of training (and most none) to keep legal.

Now, that hasn't been enough, and the receivers have been called in. Sadly, the company isn't that salvageable, as major contracts which were keeping the company afloat moved to a local non-approved trader to save cost themselves. Redundancies.

Joe suddenly finds himself out on his ear, albeit with a few grands worth of redundancy money. He decides that he can probably make some sort of business out of a couple of the contracts Smith's had, at least, enough to pay his bills. He's a good sparks, up to date in his basic quals, and willing to give it a go.

And because he has pride in what he does, and wants to offer the same approvals his former company did, he goes seeking approval. Only to be told.....Woah! You need more qualifications just to prove you can do the job you did the last ten years. That's going to cost you another six grand, and it will take you a year (or more).

A quick calculation tells Joe that he's going to have to put his base costs up by around 45% just to stay even. But that 45% just made him very uncompetitive.

So, now he's in a situation - to get approval, he needs to be a qualified supervisor. To be a qualified supervisor (as he was for the previous several years) he needs to spend money, and take a qualification just to prove he knows what he already does.

What makes him more angry is he's still in touch with colleagues from Smith's biggest rival, a Large regional/Small National who are sending a few of their guys on that very course - and he's discovered, of course, that they can suffer the short term loss through economy of scale, and they win in the end by putting a few guys on the course, and cutting back harder on everyone else's training (well, the new qualified guy can check everything off, so the others don't *really* need extra training or quals).

And in turn, that larger company now seems more competitive than Joe does, all because of size.

The situation here isn't that Joe doesn't want the qualification, or has no chance of getting it. It's one of timing. If his old company had gone bust a year previously, he'd have had time to do the approval without needing this extra cost qualification. But it didn't. And ultimately, he gets penalised for trying to do the right thing.

So, ultimately, it comes down to this.

If the IET, NIC, et al, are that serous about getting EVERYONE qualified appropriately, then they need to start looking at the ways in which they are going about that. Make the training accessible - make it workable.

Licence the training, and put it on the cost of certification, for example - spread over monthly payments for annual membership, or similar, and charge a proportional rate too - these bodies, above all, should be supporting the industry they're trying to improve, not continually squeezing the little guy out in the big guy's favour.

They should be providing extra help in real practical ways for small traders, and forcing the bigger guys to look after their own costs a little more.

Otherwise, with step changes like this, they run the very real risk of forcing more electricians into illegal, or unapproved work, even if competent, and worse, they let cowboys exploit yet another rock face the guys trying to do it right have to climb.

Again, I AM in support of the highest levels of training for everyone in the industry, and would like nothing more than to see 100% uptake of all relevant qualifications for anyone touching electricity - but I also run a business, one which tries it's level best to adopt a 100% approved and qualified approach, and which sees its overheads forced up incessantly by step change demands on approval, changes to standards, and so on, with little, if any consideration as to the economic impact of the way in which they are done.

I also have NO issue at all in paying for required qualifications and training - more the way in which it is forced upon us, penalising small guys every time through cost, while letting the REAL issues remain unchecked - Cowboy practitioners who really don't care about the safety in the first place. Money would be far better spent there, than in designing new, and probably relatively worthless qualifications.

/Rant on Hold.....Please listen to the nice calming music (thrash metal played way too loud) for ten minutes while we direct your call to someone who can't possibly help you.

 

[Des 56]

What an excellent summary of the proposal and its effects by accorfire,I would like to see you post that response word for word on the Iet forum,it would be satisfying to know that the instigators of change become aware of shortcomings in their plans,such as described.Well done indeed

 

[johnboy6083]

i agree with a lot of your points bill, but i do believe what they seem to be proposing is a step in the right direction. Im happy to take further qualifications, but i want to do this regardless of whether its forced on me or not. i can see the point of pricing smaller outfits out of the market, but maybe lets say 2391/ course C/ 2400 (one of the three) as a start. JIB companies are supposed to provide at least one attempt at the 2391 anyway, and most medium sized firms are JIB.

All i want is for every person installing electrical equipment to be trained to the same standards, and a minimum level of knowledge and experience.

 

[accordfire]

What an excellent summary of the proposal and its effects by accorfire,I would like to see you post that response word for word on the Iet forum,it would be satisfying to know that the instigators of change become aware of shortcomings in their plans,such as described.Well done indeed

Thanks Des

It may well be worth it - something I will investigate over the next day or so.

Going to try not to rant off about it too much however - I still have to rationalise in my mind the differences between this issue, and the University fees issue, if there is actually one.

The rational part of me has sat here a little while wondering if my outburst about the proposed change in qualification levels is in fact that much different from hundreds of 20 somethings kicking off about increases in University fees.

I'm fairly certain it is different, though as yet I'm not sure how to counter the argument that it isn't.

Differences - I'm certain I'm not expecting something for nothing, or for future benefit at no expense to myself (or my business). I'm also fairly sure that the primary issue I have with it is also different, in that university students will, on the whole (assuming they do a relevant and worthwhile degree) have a better than average chance of earning far more than the cost of the education. I grow less sure with every new "qualification" or "approval" required that my business has a better than average chance of recovering the cost of that education, much less profit from it.

Further, am I the only one that sees it as a bit of an abomination that NVQ's are classed as qualifications? Are they not in fact mostly assessments of competence, rather than actual qualifications?

I also wonder, all that said, if doctors, solicitors, or other degree bearing professionals have to suffer ever increasing demands on their professional competence (and to continue to pay for it year on year) in the way that we, as electricians, plumbers, or other "skilled" trades have to. Come to that, do builders, plasterers or carpenters have to suffer the same pressure on their overheads?

And fundamentally, if there is really no way around the cost or requirement of additional training, then why is nothing done to protect (really protect) those investing in it and doing the right thing.

After all, you wouldn't get away very long with practicing as a Doctor or Solicitor if you weren't right up to date on your bona fides. I know there have been cases, but how many times in a week do you get someone sidle up to you in the pub and offer to do that Minor surgery on the QT for cash, cheaper than the registered guy can......why should it be any different for us, if we have to undergo continuous updates in our knowledge, skills, and dents in overheads?

Ah well.....

 

[oldtimer]

This all sounds original until you realise that all we are doing is copying the system of the USA ie Master Electrician all companies must employ one and he is the guy responsable from who,s in charge---who,s to blame----who signs this job off yet again we have a minority who want to as I see it dictate to the trade instead of consulting them and who,s bright idea was to introduce another qualification yes you guessed it the guys who are kept in a job to manage it.

So here is the deal you spend 6 years serving your time you return to collage for the next 00th edition you get I&T but although in the eyes of the law you are a "technically competent person" you are not supposed to work for yourselve until wait for it you need to be registered to so called govering bodies who in my view dont govern but want a cut from you and here is the best bit we have all these layers of policing but heres the catch if something goes wrong your the one that goes to jail because the so called govering bodies are only an "advisory group" in the eyes of the law.
I for one would like to see a test case not here but in europe to define exactly what everybodies roles are and it could be fought under "free trade" because I feel right now the whole thing is a total mess but hey why not if Master Electrician is the way to go at least we can all go for the 2 day course then we can strut about with another badge on our shirt waiting for the next great idea.
I will leave you with this it worked quite well with Electrician / Approved / Technician for years now like some political party we need to change direction to meet the challenges of the 21st centuary in other words the Govering bodies are out of controls and maybe we should bring all together under the "Federation of Master Electrical Contractors" yes

 

[Ponty Massive]

The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET – The Institution of Engineering and Technology - The IET) has announced that all Qualified Supervisors will - from July 2011 - have to hold higher qualifications.

Does this refer to a part P domestic sole trader? If this is the case, it won't make a difference to the cowboys anyway. Mrs Jones wants a CU changed, Bodgit & Scarper give her a price, in and out cash in the hand. No certs no receipt!!!

 

[IQ Electrical]

Does this refer to a part P domestic sole trader? If this is the case, it won't make a difference to the cowboys anyway. Mrs Jones wants a CU changed, Bodgit & Scarper give her a price, in and out cash in the hand. No certs no receipt!!!

Well until a well publicised campaign detailing heavy fines for householders employing non-notifying cowboys comes into force, this will NEVER stop.

In other words, this will NEVER stop!