How to tackle electrical fire safety in social housing

Image: Dreamstime

Key decision-makers in safety, engineering services and social housing management have come up with key recommendations for reducing fire risk, writes Omar Khalil

How can more effective electrical and fire safety measures be introduced in the social housing sector? This was the key question at a roundtable was attended by representatives from the Electrical Contractors Association (ECA), the Association of Electrical Safety managers (AESM), Electrical Safety First (ESF), the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, as well as leading figures from the electrotechnical and engineering services sector.

The roundtable identified that regulations relating to fire safety in the social housing sector were, on the whole, “outdated and not fit for purpose”, mirroring the views presented in the post-Grenfell Hackitt Report at the end of 2018. Several routes to improvement were identified throughout the roundtable discussion, beginning with improving skills and training.

Questioning competence

Attendees were asked to consider the question: does safety begin and end with competence? The answer was a resounding “yes” from the electrical side of the table – and a unified, standardised means of determining competence would help to negate the disparities in skill often seen between technicians with the same job title.

Yet the view was also expressed that the electrotechnical industry must address the skills gap immediately, as competence could be about to “fall off a cliff”.

“We need a clear definition of competence for electrical work,” said one roundtable attendee. “For each discipline, we need to determine the correct level of knowledge, experience and qualifications for a specific piece of work.” Attendees noted that “some people believe competence is just a qualification, but it is not.”

Race to the bottom

The conversation about competence tied directly into another about value-for-money – or avoiding the “race to the bottom”. It was noted that electrical installation condition reports (EICR) can be completed for as little as £40 in some cases, effectively ‘pricing out’ operatives trying to uphold standards of quality and safety. A benchmark schedule of rates was proposed as a potential solution, although pricing practices across the entire supply chain will likely need to be addressed first.

The same concept applies to training courses – where any migration to the cheapest options for operatives could begin to put the safety of social residents at risk.

One attendee observed, “if electricians do a bad job, there can be a risk to life. But for some reason, we are not regulating those who do this work and anyone can call themselves an electrician.” Initiatives such as the now widespread Electrotechnical Certification Scheme (ECS) card have done a lot to remove ambiguity around technicians’ competence. However, the same attendee added, “we struggle to find operatives with gold (ECS) cards, because commercial work pays so much more.”

Much more remains to be done to install an overarching, consensus-led skills framework for electrotechnical operatives working in the social housing sector.

How to inspect

On the topic of five-yearly inspections, as mandated for the private rented sector (PRS), the discussion turned to how feasible these would actually be in the social sector. As the deterioration of installations tends to increase over time, the regularity of inspections comes into question.

While five-yearly inspections “may make more sense in the private sector”, it was agreed that perhaps a more suitable approach for the social housing sector would involve an initial assessment of a property’s risk profile to dictate a schedule of regular inspections based on an engineer’s judgement. For instance, a few months for a property deemed ‘high-risk’, or several years for a ‘low-risk’ property.

Obstacles to progress

On the whole, the biggest issues holding back electrical fire safety in the social housing sector, according to the consensus reached at the roundtable, were identified as:

• the intra-industry understanding of compliance (where responsibility lies);
• the huge amount of variation in training (the easy availability of poor-quality apprenticeships);
• the problem of cost vs value-for-money (the race to the bottom).

With greater focus on tenant engagement and education, some of these obstacles could be overcome through better awareness and safer practices by tenants themselves.

Social housing authorities, the electrical industry and government, which were collectively referred to as a “stakeholder triad”, continue to operate in silos and don’t always distinguish between cost and value-for-money. To improve social tenants’ situation, there must be more collaboration between these three groups.

Consensus is the first step towards change, and proposed solutions to the above challenges will form the basis of future discussions between the stakeholder triad and others. With renewed focus and resources, the aim is to achieve significant change – as the social cost of inaction is far too significant to be ignored.