Review of Domestic Gas Safety

Report for the

Health and Safety Executive

1.1.1

9 Staple Inn Holborn London WC1V 7QH Tel 0207 404 7005 Fax 0207 404 8010 consult@frontlinemc.com www.frontline-consultants.com HE0502-79

Review of Domestic Gas Safety

Final Report for the Health and Safety Executive

Contents Page

Executive Summary

1. Methodology and Process 1

2. Domestic Gas Safety 4

3. Reducing the Risk of CO Poisoning 10

4. Gas Installer Competence 16

5. Illegal Installers 22

6. Legislative Framework and Standards 26

7. Framework Options 29

8. Concluding Remarks 37

HE0502-79

Executive Summary

1. The purpose of this review is t o explore the current arrangements to promot e domestic gas safety across the UK, to identify areas of str ength and weakness, an d to make recommendations for the future.

This is a su rprisingly complex subject, involving a number o f disparate stakeholders and some significant te nsions both within the industry and from external interests, including pressure groups.

This report has been produced after an extensi ve period of stakeholder consultation and involvement, commencing in February 2006 and including 2 stakeholder conferences, a questionnaire, over 50 interviews with organisations and individuals, and a ser ies of workin g groups. It covers piped gas an d LPG use d in domest ic homes in the UK. We would like to thank all those who have given s o much of t heir time and were so helpful.

2. The responsibility for administration of the existing regulations rests with HSE, which delegates certain functions to a registration body known as CORGI. Any g as installation business undertaking commercial installation or maintenance of a gas appliance in UK domestic premises must be registered wit h CORGI. There are a number of requirements for registra tion, including – for every emplo yed gas fittin g operative – an asse ssment of competenc y every 5 years (the ACS scheme), a portfolio of experience and, normally, a qualific ation. CORGI inspects the work of registered installers at intervals. HSE is e mpowered to enforce the relevant legislation and may issue a written warning in response to a complaint or institute formal legal proceedings with respect to a more serious incident.

3. This has been widely regarded as a safe industry, and reported fatalities have reduced to less than 30 per annum. Most deaths are caused not by fire or explosion, but by CO poisoning: CO is a co lourless, odourless gas given off by burning a combustible fuel, such as gas or oil, in the absence of adequate ventilation. Exposure to CO can cause death, permanent serious disability, or, at lower levels, more temporary, flu-like symptoms. As well as affecting quality of life, undiagnosed CO poisoning may pre vent individuals enterin g employment, be a charge on the NHS, on sick pay and other support schemes.

4. There is, however, some indication that the incidence of CO poisoning and even the level of fatalities may be under-reported. Research also suggests that there may be a number of homes with potentially dangerous levels of background C O linked to patterns of use and faulty, or poorly ventilated, gas appliances, representing an unquantified health risk.

Recent studies further suggest that the public may have a poor awareness of the concept, dangers and causes of CO poisoning. Industry e fforts to raise awareness are limited and not well co-ordinated. There is a real risk that, in the light of emerging evidence about the potential pre valence of CO, the i ndustry may be judge d irresponsible if action is not now ta ken to address this issue. This could have a f ar more damaging commercial effect than measured communication th at alerts th e public, including health professionals, to the dangers of CO and how to manage these.

5. Risk patterns are changing with regard to CO poisoning: households most at risk appear increasingly to be those where current laws do no t identify a duty holder to ensure safe installation and regular checking of gas appliances, eg: owner-occupied premises rather than multiple o ccupancy rented accommodation. It seems unlikely that legislation and the associated enforcement will be introduced to cover this area: increased awareness of the potential CO hazard therefore appears the only option if the risk is to be reduced.

6. It is essential that steps are taken to increase public awareness of the CO hazard, given the pote ntial to cause death and serious injury, changing patterns of risk and recent evidence suggesting that the public hea lth risk may be more widespread than previously acknowledged. In order to deliver this, there will need to be:

• additional funds • a co-ordinating body • involvement from a wider range of interests, including Health

We therefore recommend that an i ndustry co-coordinating body be set up to initiate work and fu nd raising in support o f CO aware ness. Th is should be chaired by a respected and high profile public figure, and should involve a variety of interest groups and government departments, including DWP, DCLG and DH. The domestic gas registration body/bodies may play a significant an d increasing role in the management and support of this group, and should be encouraged so to do. Indee d, there is logic in this co- coordinating function being assigne d to the ga s registration body/bodies and we so recommend.

The CO awareness co-ordinating body sho uld explore cases for a variety of initiatives, some focused, others more wide ra nging, and should act t o co-ordinate existing efforts and take advantage of untapped but inexpensive opportunities, eg : leaflets which cou ld be sent with gas b ills, left by installers and the emergency services.

Funds may come from a variety of sources including industry contributions, existing surplus from registration fees, rise in registration and ACS incomes f rom additional registration, CORGI Trust (which receives the profits fr om CORGI’s commercial activities). If these fun ding streams are in sufficient, legislation may be needed t o produce a levy on the industry: if th is is required, other fuels which can produce CO in situations of incomplete combustion should also be included.

Other initiatives considered by the CO awareness co-ordinating body should include:

• audible CO detection alarms, which can be very effective and reliable • what more can realistically be done by the emergency gas services when attending at a possible CO poisoning situation • phasing out of old and open flued appliances, especially boilers, which represent higher risk • use of the home energy rating scheme to high light hazards and safety measures connected with domestic gas • promotion of clinical awareness of CO sympto ms and detectio n, especially among GPs and pathologists

Increased public CO a wareness will al so reduce some of the tension s within the industry. For example, if householders are aware of the dangers, t hey are mo re likely to use a registe red gas pr ofessional, thus reducing the level of illegal, unregistered installers and consequent pressure from legal insta llers for greater investment in enforcement. This will also dri ve more current illegal installers t o register, increasing the flow of reve nue to ACS providers and the registration body: this could be used to reduce costs t o installers and/or to part-fund a CO awareness campaign.

7. The current ACS scheme and registration systems are widely seen by installers a s being too onerous and inflexible and may well discourage registration. A strong , independent voice is required to challenge the assessment system and standards for ACS certification. Step s within th e industry to address this should be encouraged and accelerated. The aim should be to produce an approach that is:

• risk based • simplified • allows individuals to demonstrate competence with a more flexible mix of assessment, inspection, qualifications, experience and continuous professional development

The registration body/bodies must ensure that registration criteria also reflect this changed approach.

8. There are some concerns abo ut the competence of registered installers, particularly following recent introduction of more random inspections by CORGI. This needs further attention and we would suggest:

• that the ACS scheme aims to improve overall standards of competence by engendering more generic skills • that CORGI review the action taken if a substan dard installation is found, eg: compulsory additional training, higher levels of insp ection and an increased registration fee • while supporting the concept of the gas works notification scheme, wh ich allows more random in spections, the methodo logy should be reviewe d, eg: allow the installer to certify his work direct with the customer and send a copy of the paperwork to CORGI, rather than the other way around • use of flue gas analysers should be mandatory when installing or servicing open flued appliances

9. A number of issues o f some substance have been ident ified with re spect to th e interface between HSE and the registration body, and its management and role. We recommend that HSE review these issues and invite expressions of interest from appropriately qualified organisations wishing to take on th e role of th e registration body. An assessment of competency should be made b y an HSE pa nel against a number of criteria, including:

• delivery of key issues outlined in this report, especially co-ordinating action to promote CO awareness and changes to competency a nd registration systems

• a business case to d emonstrate how the registration scheme will be funded without additional cost to installers • an improvement in key safety issues • ability to work with stakeholders and other registration bodies • innovative approaches and added value • probity and transparency in governance, espe cially with regard to conflict of interest, commercial enterprise, interface with HSE • delivery of key aspects of the registration sche me, eg geo graphic cover, installer and public help lines, managing complaints • a consumer voice

Organisations satisfying the panel would be re cognised as registration bodies for a reasonable period, perhaps 5 years. If t he case made by on e body were considerably stronger than the oth ers, or offer ed substantial additional benefits, the panel may decide to recognise only one registration provider. Registration bodie s should be subject to regular and transparent reviews of p erformance against key indicators. This is a process akin to that used nowadays in mos t substantial procurements.

We recommend this process to review recognition of registr ation bodies be repeated at regular intervals determined from time to time by HSE: perhaps every 5 years in normal circumstances, allowing the drivers and direction of the registratio n body/bodies to be revised and updated, yet giving a level of consistency and ability to recover investment through a minimum period of tenure.

There is considerable debate as to whether one or more registration b odies should be recognised: there are advantages and drawbacks to either approach, none of which is currently of overriding prio rity or cannot be managed. While it is important that there is only one registration scheme, providing the system is properly set up and regulated, it could be admini stered by more than one registration provider. Whatever the short-term decision, we recomme nd that HSE retain a framework that allows the appointment of more than one registration body.

10. The legislation dealing with domestic piped gas and LPG – The Gas Safet y (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 – would benefit from so me changes, especially:

• simplification: some of the current legislation appears, in practice, to b e redundant, or a duplication, and it is therefor e more con fusing than it needs to be • the clear and unambi guous use of a goal -setting approach, which recognises an industry code of p ractice to define specific standar ds relating to technical issues of installation and servicing, rather than setting these out in law: this would promote changes in line with technology and practice, address some ambiguity with regard to the competence of foreign workers, and could provid e greater clarity about standards in prosecutions • rationalisation of prescriptive clauses, in support of an industry code of practice

• if the above were in place, a “Ha ynes workshop manual” approach to standards could more readily occur , potentially making installation an d servicing easier to understand, and therefore safer • more minor issues relating to non-process factory gas appliances

11. The issue of landlords’ duties with regard to g as safety may benefit from a further review. Current legislation requires an annual safety check certificate for all multiple occupancy households where there are gas appliance s. Inciden ts in such accommodation appear to have reduced in consequence . There are criticisms, however, that the syste m is not risk-based an d is too on erous, and, in complet e contrast, that an annual service should be required, not merely a safety check.

12. While the law with regard to unregistered installers appears clear – they are acting illegally if th ey charge for their work – it does not support a significa nt number of successful prosecutions, despite the apparent prevalence of illegal activity. From the perspective of the industry, action taken against illegal installers is seen as limited and an insufficiently effective deterrent. The lack of succe ssful prosecutions may be due to:

• limited initiation of formal enforcement by HSE (or other bodies) • courts being unconvinced that n on-registration should have serious consequences • difficulty in identifying individuals and linking them with a particular job of work • some uncertainty about installation standards: this could be rectified by the formal recognition of an industry code of practice (see para 10)

As non-registered in stallers are u nlikely to take part in assessment an d inspection, and will probably undergo minimal levels of training and professional update, they are likely to be less safe than registered installers. We explor ed a number of ideas in support of reducing the number of non-registered installers, and have concluded that there is no one answer. Instead, progress sh ould be ma de through a variety o f ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’, including:

• higher public awareness of CO ha zard and pr evention will ensure more demand for registered installers • targeted episodes of prosecution fr om HSE, using current resources in a different way • strengthened efforts to publicise prosecutions and othe r enforcement activity • further exploration by HSE of penal ty systems and the possibility of an increased role for the registration body/bodies • a less rigid approach to registration and assessment, which still ensures a high level of competence, but attracts more installers • efforts to raise penalties administered by the co urts on these health and safety offences and en courage consideration of alternative sentencin g which might serve as a greater deterrent, eg: community service

13. Standard setting within the indust ry generally works well, and there is consultat ion with ACS providers and other stakeholders. There could, however, be improvements to the ad h oc way in which stand ards are p ublished for use. If re leased in a controlled way, perhaps in batches, it could be easier for all stakeholders to keep up to date and could minimise some uncertaint y about wh en a change become s compulsory or only advisory for training purposes.

Further, this could be an opportunity to release associated standards at the same time, removing problems that may occur when the implica tions of o ne change in practice have not been worked through.

14. The industry is fragmented and without a single voice or co-ordinating body. Difficulties highlighted include: lack of rap id feedback about safety issues and incidents, lack of co-or dination over CO a wareness opportunities and difficulty in driving change even wh en the direction of travel is broad ly supported. There have recently been some modest ste ps towards self-governance within the indust ry, through the creation of mechanisms to revise t he ACS regime. It is possible that the review of the registratio n system recommended above could create a body with the ability and support to draw stakeholders together: this would be welco me and we so recommend.

1 Methodology and Process

This document should be read in conjunction with Review of Domestic Gas Safety – Executive Summary, which outlines our conclusion s and recommendations. Here we expand these and provide extra details o n the methodology adopted and options consid ered and reje cted, in a ssociation with stakeholders, during the project.

The 2006 Review was launched at a stakeholder forum on 20 February 2006. This was opened by Lord Hunt of Ki ngs Heath, Minister with responsibility for Health and Safety, and was attended by o ver 90 stakeholders1. The forum introduced the Review and stakeholders were asked to identify the key areas the review needed to a ddress. Th ese were determined to be (as pu blished by HSE):

• public and other group’s awareness of CO – options for funding research, raising awareness and encouraging industry ownership through voluntary contributions • gas installer competence – consider links between Accredited Certification Scheme (ACS), the Gas Work Notificatio n Scheme (GWN) and the CORGI registration scheme • unregistered installers – examine t he options to reduce illegal ga s installations including the penalties available and who is best placed to undertake enforcement • legislative framework and standar ds – loo k at which p arts of the existing framework add value and which pa rts do not. Explore whether the legislation should adopt a more goal setting approach with details set out in industry standards to al low for more flexibility. Include looking at opportunities that may flow fro m ODPM competent persons scheme, give n that HSE has stated that in lin e with its strategic priorities, it wo uld like to r elease resources from gas safety work.