we can all agree and disagree as much as we like.
Indeed we can. The difference, perhaps, is whether we deploy facts and research to support our arguments.
But taken in its simplest form, reducing access to the means of diy repairs etc will help reduce issues.
And there we go, with an assertion entirely without any supportive evidence.
I should make something clear here. If your argument is that restricting the sale of gas appliance to GSRs will be to the short term economic advantage of GSRs, then you are absolutely correct. Should it remain the only restrictive legislation, and if the industry manages to restrict the numbers entering the profession, then, just like an old fashioned medieval guild, it will work to their advantage in the long term.
Of course, should all other similar trades seek and obtain similar protections, then the resulting inflation in other goods and services will cancel out any gain. Indeed, the overall effect will be to reduce economic growth and impoverish all, even those it seeks to advantage.
However, I am addressing the assertion that public safety would be enhanced by restricting sales of gas appliances, spares etc to registered engineers. I assume that this argument presumes that such a restriction would reduce the deaths caused either by CO or by gas explosion, or at least reduce the occurence of ill health or injury caused by these factors?
If there is another argument, please share it.
So, to make the case for restricting sales, we have to do two things:
1) We have to establish at least the likelihood that such a restriction would reduce the body count AND
2) We have to estabish that this is the most effective solution - ie that the same reduction in bodycount could not be achieved at less cost through an alternative policy
So, lets check out the body count.
The first thing we notice is that CO deaths are not generally caused by Mains gas appliances. They are overwhelmingly caused by other fuel types
The next thing that we notice is that the actual number of clearly attributable deaths involving mains gas is incredibly small*. 3 in 2012/13. Zero the year before. The preceding years are 12, 4, 16, 11 and 9 respectively.
Getting into the detail, in most cases, the problem is that the appliance had NO attention, whether from a qualified engineer, or not.
Finally, in the very rare occasion where the appliance had received work that resulted in the death, the evidence is mixed - some is caused by qualified engineers having a bad day, others by DIY attention.
Now, we have all heard of the law of unintended consequences.
It is a mistake to assume that, denied access to the proper equipment, the DIYer or penny pinching landlord will immediately see the light, and engage a competent engineer. Sure, some will. But others will persist, and will use inappropriate materials, thus risking a higher body count.
After talking at length to the lady who runs the CO death charity, I got two clear messages. The first was that public awareness of CO, and the value of CO alarms should be the subject of an advertising campaign. (And I see that this is currently underway.) The other was that the profession and regulatory authorities should look harder at enforcing standards amongst qualified engineers.
You may not like to hear it, but thats an unbiased opinion. If you want to save lives, campaign for public awareness and CO alarms. And lobby GasSafe get your own house in order.
Its easy to blame DIYers, but they are not the primary risk here.
And, at the risk of boring everyone, between 60% and 80% of sales of gas appliances are to non-GSRs, but are not to DIY. They are sales down the supply chain (manufacturer > distributor > merchant) or to perfectly respectable organisations like HAs, government departments, MOD, universities, housebuilders etc. Since I assume that you don't wish to ban sales to these organisation, you would have to introduce a new regulatory infrastructure of "not GSR, but allowed to deal in appliances". All this expense could be devoted to actually addressing the problem, rather than your misconception of the problem.
*Near misses are much harder to quantify, as CO poisoning in non-fatal cases often goes undiagnosed. However, there is no reason to believe that non-fatal poisoning cases have a differing cause-profile from fatal cases.
