Overview of Submissions
A wide range of opinions were expressed. Matters raised covered the response to questions and possible approaches put forward in the discussion document and other matters submitters considered relevant to the review.
There tended to be three general main strands of opinion in the submissions with significant differences in views between the supply/distribution sector of the industry, smaller companies, and groups and individuals representing the public interest.
Views on Achieving Safety
Individuals and public interest groups saw the present rate of deaths from electrical accidents as totally unacceptable while other groups considered that safety alone was not a reason for change as accidents involving electrical and gas work were low compared with accidents in other industries involved in construction.
Submitters from the supply/distribution sector of the electrical industry tended to believe that safety was best ensured by employers being responsible for ensuring that work was competently carried out. They were more likely to favor changing to a more performance-based regime which left considerable flexibility for companies to determine how they would carry out work.
Smaller companies and individuals working in the electricity and gas industries tended to support the use of individual worker registration and auditing as the best means of ensuring safety.
Some members of the public, spurred by the tragic deaths of relatives and friends through electrical accidents, wanted to see tighter procedures than those currently in place including using licensing for almost all electrical workers and increasing the amount of independent inspection required. This group also wanted to see mandatory installation of residual current devices (RCDs) as a safeguard for the public in case of electrical faults.
Prescriptiveness Versus Performance-Based Regimes
Some groups were concerned that the existing regulation, particularly in the Electricity Act and Regulations, was unduly prescriptive and outdated compared to the more performance-based approaches where a general outcome was specified and workers or companies were able to choose from a range of methods to achieve the outcome.
However, there was also a strongly held view in favour of maintaining prescriptive regulations. There were concerns that with downsizing of electricity companies and an increasingly competitive environment for electrical and gas workers, the erosion of specialised knowledge coupled with the pressure to cut corners could result in more deaths. Detailed prescriptive regulations (coupled with active enforcement) were seen as necessary to avoid confusion about what safety measures were required and to counteract the threat to public and worker safety.
Defining the Problem to Be Solved
There were differences in opinion about whether there was any problem with the current regime or, if there were problems, whether these were sufficient to justify a change.
Where it was considered that there was a problem, different groups had different views on the changes needed depending upon their perception of the problem. For instance, as mentioned earlier, groups differed sharply on whether the current regime was providing a high enough level of safety. In addition, the companies involved in the generation, supply and distribution of electricity were more likely to see duplication between the Electricity Act and regulations and their obligations under the Health and Safety in Employment (HSE) Act as a serious problem than other sectors of the electrical industry. (It appeared from the submissions that not all companies and workers in the electrical and gas industries were aware that they are currently covered by the Health and Safety in Employment Act.)
Response to Approaches in the Discussion Document
Overall, the most popular of the approaches put forward was the one which involved retaining the status quo with improvements. Areas for improvement identified in submissions included the self-certification process, the effectiveness of audits and the enforcement procedures. These were seen as areas that could be improved within the current regime rather than a justification for changing to a different type of regime.
One approach put forward in the discussion document involved separate licensing boards competing. Submitters were concerned that this could lead to duplication, possible inconsistency in standards and unnecessary costs.
There were no submissions favouring the use of consumer protection legislation as a way of ensuring safety. At best, it was seen as providing a means of redress once something had gone wrong.
Alternative Approaches and Additional Issues
Some submissions developed alternative approaches drawing on features of the ones presented in the discussion document. These included the use of separate legislation to ensure the safety of public utilities.
Additional issues were raised. These included the need for more specialised training and upskilling of those working in both the gas and electrical areas. It was felt that current requirements did not always provide for this.
Submitters also proposed ways of recording the electrical and gas work done on a house as a protection for householders.
Improvements in reporting accident data and making relevant regulations and written material on procedures more user friendly were also suggested as aids to safety.
Gas Industry Views
There were only seven submissions from the gas industry. Some submitters concluded that there was no strong reason for change in the safety regime as it was working satisfactorily, but that there was some need for changes in the areas of penalties and extending coverage of the gasregistration regime beyond the present scope, particularly to cover work on smaller LPG installations.
There was also a strong view that all safety issues should be covered through one piece of legislation, similar to that for gas transmission systems.
Changes to the safety regime should be based on mutually agreed performance criteria and indicators, reporting and auditing underpinned by good training.
Back to Top