|
Gas Work Notification Scheme
A members' business
debate on motion S2M-3698, in the name of Andrew Welsh, the gas work
notification scheme.
The
Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
The next item of business is a members' business debate on motion
S2M-3698, in the name of Andrew Welsh, on the gas work notification
scheme.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the introduction by CORGI of a
mandatory notification scheme for all new gas installations in April of
this year; further notes that, whilst supporting all measures which
genuinely improve gas safety standards, the Gas Work Notification Scheme
does not serve to improve standards or to tackle cowboy traders, that it
was conceived around the requirements of the Home Information Pack which
will apply only in England and Wales and that it places a wholly
unnecessary time and cost burden on Scottish registered gas installers,
which in turn places an additional cost burden on their major customers,
such as Scottish housing associations and local authorities, with no
benefit to the Scottish customer; is concerned at the implications of
the scheme for gas installers and consumers in Angus; is further
concerned that the scheme was introduced by CORGI without due
consultation with Scottish member organisations, and considers that the
Scottish Executive should ensure that this scheme is withdrawn from
Scotland.
Mr Andrew Welsh (Angus) (SNP):
In April this year, the Confederation for the Registration of Gas
Installers, which is the UK gas safety quango, introduced a new gas
safety measure throughout the UK as part of its mandate to regulate the
gas industry. When gas work is done by a CORGI-registered installer, the
customer receives a certificate from CORGI to say that the work was done
by a registered gas installer. While that may seem straightforward,
there are three problems with the system for Scotland.
Under the CORGI notification scheme, whenever gas work is done anywhere
in the UK, CORGI has to be notified and receive the paperwork, along
with a fee. CORGI in turn notifies the local council that the work has
been done. That process is based on building regulations in England and
Wales, but those regulations do not apply in Scotland. There has never
been such a requirement in this country, nor has there been any
indication that similar regulation will be forthcoming. The CORGI scheme
also meets the requirements of the homeowner information pack, which
requires certification of all gas works, but, once again, that is
exclusively England and Wales legislation and it is not applicable in
Scotland.
The gas notification scheme means that Scottish small and medium
enterprises and their Scottish customers pay a heavy and unnecessary
price in extra costs and bureaucracy for no gain in customer safety,
based on regulations that do not apply in Scotland.
The first problem is obvious: CORGI is forcing English regulations and
unnecessary cost burdens and bureaucracy on to Scottish small businesses
and their customers. It is estimated that, to cover registration and the
productivity time lost on registration, between £10 and £15 is added to
the customer's bill for each gas appliance installed. Such an amount is
a negligible proportion of the cost of a full central heating system,
but when it is added to the cost of installing each gas cooker, fire or
hob, it could, taking into account the additional VAT charged, increase
the bill by as much as 30 per cent. That is especially the case if the
firm provides only the labour element of the installation.
The second problem is that the method imposed by CORGI contradicts the
views of the Health and Safety Executive. The HSE's fundamental review
of gas safety in 2001 described CORGI's chosen approach as inefficient,
cumbersome and costly. At a cost of £2.50 to £4.50 for each registration
a gas fitter makes, and with an estimated 7 million to 8 million gas
fittings a year, the scheme will cost between £17 million and £36
million to operate. That is money that for the most part will be taken
out of small businesses; it will not add to public safety.
The third problem is the straightforward lack of consultation in
Scotland. When I instructed my researcher to contact CORGI board members
in Scotland to determine what level of consultation had taken place, he
found that not one Scottish member of CORGI had been consulted prior to
implementation. After that, I asked him to contact the other CORGI
council members, as advertised on the CORGI website, to ask them what
level of consultation took place. Out of the 16 responses he received,
only four stated that they had been consulted. Of those four, only three
were in favour of the scheme.
What can be done? I look forward to hearing positive proposals — and to
action — from the minister today. First, I recommend that the scheme be
withdrawn from Scotland in its entirety and replaced with something that
is more amenable to the industry, which has recommended another
approach. Secondly, proper consultation should be undertaken in Scotland
to determine the needs and desires of all of the stakeholders in the gas
industry in Scotland, from the consumer to the tradesman. Thirdly, the
HSE's recommendations should be followed. Fourthly, there should be
greater involvement by ministers and elected representatives, to ensure
that unelected UK quangos are aware of the reality of devolved
government and the needs of Scottish businesses and consumers.
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
I congratulate Andrew Welsh on securing the debate. I was happy to sign
the motion, for which he obtained cross-party support before lodging it
with the chamber desk. Although it refers specifically to Mr Welsh's
Angus constituency, I believe that that was a device to get the motion
through the chamber desk; the issue is relevant to all Scotland. I
congratulate him also on the comprehensive case that he made for the
change mentioned in the motion. In fact, he addressed the issue so
comprehensively that he has not left me much to say.
It would be interesting to hear about the Scottish Executive's
contribution to any consultation in advance of the scheme's introduction
and whether it expressed any views to CORGI. What action does the
minister propose to take to try to resolve the issue? To be fair to the
minister, I am not sure what locus the Executive has in this particular
matter. As far as I am aware, CORGI is not a statutory body; it is a
confederation of gas installers. However, I would expect the Deputy
Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, as someone who is
concerned about the impact of regulation on business, to be able to make
representations to a private body and to express the concerns of
Scottish businesses. The Parliament is about promoting the Scottish
economy and that is a stated aim of the Executive. If the scheme is
inappropriate and unnecessary, the Executive should be doing what it can
to have it removed. There is no need to put additional costs on gas
installers north of the border or their customers in the public and
private sectors.
There is genuine cross-party agreement that the gas work notification
scheme is inappropriate and should be withdrawn from Scotland. We must
have high standards, but contractors and consumers are being unfairly
penalised by the application of a scheme designed to meet requirements
in England and Wales. With the evidence before us, it seems to be folly
to continue with the scheme.
The Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning (Allan Wilson):
I join Murdo Fraser in congratulating Andrew Welsh on succeeding in
getting the issue debated. I accept that it is probably not of major
interest to everyone, but it is obviously of considerable importance to
the people who are affected — but more of that later.
I have listened with interest to and noted the views of those who have
taken part in the debate. I am also aware that four employer
representative organisations that are CORGI council members - including
the Scottish and Northern Ireland Plumbing Employers Federation, to
which several members referred — were not content with the way in which
CORGI introduced the gas work notification scheme. Such was their
discontent that one of the four organisations submitted a claim for a
judicial review of CORGI's decision, but the judge rejected the
submission on the basis that CORGI had the vires to promulgate the
scheme. Although the judge thought that — as Andrew Welsh mentioned —
CORGI's consultation could have been more detailed, they decided that
the consultation was not sufficiently inadequate.
I do not agree with Andrew Welsh's fundamental analysis, but he is to be
commended for his tenacity in keeping the issue alive through his
parliamentary questions and today's debate.
Mr Welsh:
The case to which the minister referred took place in the English
courts. Is he not concerned that the fundamental problem is that United
Kingdom quangos have not understood what devolved government means? If
they continue to deal directly only with English ministries and
ministers, there will be a problem. Is the minister happy to allow
English building regulations to determine what happens in Scotland? Was
he consulted?
Allan Wilson:
That question was also asked by Murdo Fraser. We had no input to the
consultation process. I will deal in due course with the other two
issues that Mr Welsh has raised.
The message that I am trying to convey is that my officials have tried
to be supportive throughout. They have kept in regular contact with the
Health and Safety Executive in an attempt to gain a satisfactory
solution. I hope that Andrew Welsh will accept that.
We are all keen to support measures that improve gas safety standards.
That should go without contradiction. However, if I may answer the
question that Murdo Fraser asked, the Scottish Executive does not have
the legal competence to take action directly by withdrawing the scheme
from Scotland in the way that the motion suggests.
Putting those matters to one side, we need to consider the detail of the
scheme — as ever, the devil is in the detail — before we consider the
differences of opinion between CORGI and some gas installer
organisations. The Greens suggested that the scheme was a pointless
punitive measure, but Euan Robson took a more measured approach. It is
fair to say that CORGI believes that, thanks to five factors, the scheme
will help to tackle the problem of work being done by non-registered
installers and will increase the credibility of registered installers.
First, the tightening up of the inspection process for registered
installers will enable CORGI independently to select work for inspection
rather than rely on installers identifying inspection sites. Secondly,
the scheme will make it more
difficult for illegal, non-registered installers to practise. The
declaration of safety will enable CORGI to reinforce key safety messages
and to increase consumer awareness of the need to use a CORGI-registered
installer. Fourthly, the scheme will aid product recall and ensure that
comprehensive, accurate information on installations and replacement
work is available. Finally, it will assist with the identification and
rectification of risk factors, such as common problems with installing a
particular product, and will ensure that a comprehensive, accurate and
centralised record of the work that has been undertaken is available. I
put it to members, as reasonable men and women, that those are potential
advantages to both the Scottish consumer and the industry.
UK installer bodies, including SNIPEF, believe that the scheme is flawed
such that it will have no impact on the extent to which non-registered
installers operate — as Andrew Welsh mentioned — and have expressed
their concerns directly to CORGI, of which they are members.
CORGI is approved by the Health and Safety Executive to operate the
statutory registration scheme for gas installers under the gas safety
regulations to which Euan Robson referred. The HSE sets broad criteria
under which the registration body — which, in this instance, is CORGI —
should function, but it is open to the registration body to determine
the detailed arrangements under which it operates its registration
scheme.
That is how it should be. The criteria require CORGI to be constituted
with a board of directors that is accountable to a "principal
representative body" — the CORGI council. That arrangement was put in
place specifically to give organisations the opportunity to play a
significant role in furthering gas safety and in representing their
individual members. As a consequence, CORGI may carry out its activities
free of control or interference from the HSE, subject to the criteria
and its public law obligations. To respond to the specific point that
Andrew Welsh made, most of us agree that that is how it should be.
Mr Welsh:
The Health and Safety Commission summed up its view on CORGI's
completion certificate scheme as follows:
"We believe that this would be unduly bureaucratic and burdensome on the
industry and would offer little safety advantage."
Those comments strike me as pretty straightforward. Is the minister
placing no weight on the Health and Safety Commission's views? Although
he has no legal powers to intervene, he has the ability to gather
together those involved in the industry in Scotland to try to thrash out
a solution that is more suited to the Scottish situation.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Minister, you are entering your last minute.
Allan Wilson:
I crave your indulgence, Presiding Officer. Because of the complex
nature of the debate, I would like to see it through to its conclusion.
At the scheduled end of my speech, I will say something that relates
specifically to the issue that Andrew Welsh has raised.
I have set out the relationship between CORGI, gas installers and the
Health and Safety Executive. I take my relationship with all three very
seriously. I have been advised that CORGI's core reason for introducing
the gas work notification scheme is to enhance gas safety and that it
was not solely conceived, as has been argued, around the requirements of
the home information pack. As members have said, those requirements
apply only in England and Wales, under the terms of the Housing Act
2004.
Irrespective of the position that one takes on the issue, the Housing
(Scotland) Bill contained provisions, which we recently approved, that
will allow ministers to make regulations prescribing documents that will
have to be provided to potential buyers when a house is marketed in
Scotland. The precise nature of the documents to go into purchaser
information packs has yet to be developed.
Even if there is still a difference of opinion on the core reason for
the introduction of the scheme, we need to accept that, in practice, all
home owners can be pressed to provide information about gas
installations in their homes when they offer them for sale. That is a
salient point. In my view, it suggests that the gas work notification
scheme is of benefit to all home owners, irrespective of whether they
are located in Scotland, England or Wales.
It is not for me, other ministers or the Health and Safety Executive to
intervene. The HSE says that the introduction of the complete safety
initiative and the gas work notification scheme is a matter for CORGI,
its council members and members of the registration scheme. As I
mentioned earlier, SNIPEF is a member of the CORGI council.
I thank Andrew Welsh for raising the matter for debate. I welcome the
recent announcement by the HSE that it will undertake a new gas safety
review and sincerely hope that all those who have an interest in the
issue will have an opportunity to feed their views into the process.
Recently I met Lord Hunt in London to discuss the matter. I spoke to him
again only yesterday. He will be happy to consider, in conjunction with
the review, the views that members and I have expressed in the debate.
The review will examine whether the current regulatory arrangements
continue to provide an appropriate and — to respond to a point made by
Murdo Fraser — cost-effective means of securing gas safety. A
cost-benefit analysis will be carried out. The work will be taken
forward through three research projects, one of which will review CORGI,
focusing on the part of the
organisation with which the HSE is concerned — the registration scheme
for gas installers.
I hope that the review, the process and the research that has been
instigated will address all members' concerns. They will have the
opportunity to feed into the process. My officials and I will keep in
close contact with the HSE in Scotland as that work progresses. I
encourage everyone else to do likewise.
To view the entire debate -
Please
Click Here
|
