Certain domestic electrical work is notifiable under R. 12 of the Building Regulations 2010. There are 2 ways of notifying: (1) direct to the local authority, for which there is a fee to be paid by the householder, and an even bigger fee if they feel the need to check the competence of the electrician; and (2) by virtue of being a member of a registered competent person scheme, for which there is a nominal charge to the electrician.

What has changed is entry to the CPSs.

Yes, a CU change is notifiable, but an EICR is not.

I'm more looking at along the lines of the EAS publication attached, There simply isn't enough Qs qualified sparks in the country so how are companies mitigating this? I'm aware of plenty of testing programs going ahead and most of them are not qualified to QS level..

It is becoming the norm for clients to demand a breakdown of the qualifications of personnel along with a management oversight strategy. Almost all public bodies in NI will have that built into the pre-tender process. Whether it gets policed or not when the works commence is another matter. 
The system is a wee bit better than the madness that hitherto prevailed. There is one hospital project in Belfast, where the electrical installation was mostly put together by farmers, taxi drivers and the like. Those were the days when the main electrical contractor could employ a labour only sub-contractor who could use who he liked to complete the job. Suddenly 200 “sparks” could magically descend on the job within a days notice when the pressure was on! 
When I was contracting, I had a great wee team. One guy was a firefighter who came in on his days off, another was a dairy farmer, both with absolutely superb pair of hands, but both were properly supervised and attended to the bulk of a sparks work that is relatively unskilled such as installing trunking, tray, swa etc. 
It seems now that the desire is to have all these tasks undertaken by NVQ L3 electricians with 2391 and up to date wiring regs qualifications. 
No need for that if the guys are properly supervised and trained up on the health and safety side of things.

This is the issue, some companies are interpreting 'close and detailed supervision' different to others and some are interpreting the 'ability to demonstrate competence' My take is as long as long as they have a form of NVQ 3 2391 and 18th they should be able to carry these works out with supervision (Every cert checked and regular audits) and competence shown is the 18th and the 2391 which we know is harder than the NVQ3 anyway....  

I have nothing to do  with this particular case professionally, but I am always wary of new 'rules' that start as guidance,  that may have more to do with protecting memberships and a sort of creeping remote management empire building than are really going to make things safer or protect the workforce. The decision of how much someone needs supervision may as well be taken by someone near the situation who knows the individuals involved and the proposed  activities in detail.
Mike

Just a point of order that the EAS Management Committee is not 'the IET'.

The EAS is not published by the IET, but the EAS Management Committee. The IET is represented on the Committee, provides administrative support, and hosts the web-page through which those within the the industry, and members of the public, can obtain the documents published by the EAS Management Committee.

I have the documents but are very ambiguous ...