星空传媒

The letter from Alan Crisp (鈥楻egulation hell?鈥� EMC, Feb) reminds me that I have been silent for too long. He highlights the cry from all of us old sparks: why us? We had harmonisation of cable colours thrust upon us last year, and are now hearing frightening reports of explosions and damage caused as a direct result.

The next joke is Part P. One wonders exactly what the P stands for 鈥� pathetic maybe? We read highly non-technical reports of the MP鈥檚 daughter who died as a result of an electric shock, and whose death probably prompted the Government to authorise Part P 鈥� P in this case standing for panic. Interesting to read that the cables were not buried 50 mm, as recommended, into the plaster 鈥� 50 mm? Also, they had used 鈥渦ninsulated鈥� cables: what the hell are they? The salient point is the installation was carried out by 鈥渂uilders鈥�.

Yes, of course electrical installations must be safe. Yes, of course only competent persons should carry them out. Surely as members of the ECA and NICEIC we are competent persons? By all means test and qualify people such as builders if they want to undertake electrical work, but for God鈥檚 sake we are already qualified.

I really admire a Government and our own organisations telling me that after over 30 years in the trade I must get another company in to certify the electrical work I am about to do in my own kitchen.

A R Ferguson, Solent Power Systems, Southampton

I have always been a firm advocate of stamping out cowboys, not least in the electrical industry. But what difference do the legislators think Part P will make?

Cowboy workers by definition will be unaffected except, perhaps, in high profile cases where things go wrong. In the sad case reported in EMC (鈥楳other killed by faulty kitchen wiring system鈥�, Nov 2004, p7) it is unlikely that Part P would have made any difference: those doing that standard of work would not have called in an inspector.

I鈥檓 a lay magistrate and it is evident, even to me, that there is ample law on the statute books to cover most situations; it is its implementation that is lacking.

Secondly, it seems that after 45 years of experience, suddenly my competence is questionable and my work needs checking. Does membership of a trade or professional body count for nothing or are such organisations operating double standards? It implies that fee paying members鈥� qualifications are adequate for membership but not to do the work. I鈥檓 at ease if someone wishes to view my work, but don鈥檛 charge me for a service I don鈥檛 want or need!

When Andrew Brister, in his editorial (鈥楶 for policing鈥�, EMC, Nov 2004, p5), says that 鈥渦nqualified tradespeople鈥� should be limited in what they may do, he defines, in that very statement, who may be registered 鈥� without the necessity to pay for further money-making courses. Incidentally, who assesses the assessors and can we trust them where money is involved?

I have been involved with training all my working life because learning and professional development is important to me; but it seems that Part P, for all its good intentions, is becoming a means to a fast buck for those with an eye for the main chance.

Philip Mansell, Lancashire