ESQCR (The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations) and BS7671

Is this causing any problem that requires the effort of new legislation being laid before Parliament ? If so then the way for an individual to kick it off is to talk to their MP.

Generally legislation is always tied to a specific version of any professional code or regulation, so that the letter of UK law is not being changed by bodies not directly  answerable to parliament or indirectly to the electorate.

The prosecution decision as to if some practice breaks the law or not, does not, and must not,  change when the JPEL committee or an equivalent, sit down and draft an amendment, unless that meeting is subject to parliamentary oversight, and the changes are granted royal assent etc.(the light touch way of doing this without a full debate is a statutory instrument, where some of that authority is derogated to a minster, but there is still supposed to be be full cost benefit analysis and impact assessment unless its a national emergency.)

The alternative, not permitted in the UK,  is what the legal profession refer to as Ambulatory Legislation, where for example it might suddenly become illegal for a DNO to connect a supply to an installation without AFDDs, when the week before it wasn't, without any of the due legal process to see if this step change was proportionate and in the national interest.

The side effect is that by the time things do go through and get royal assent, they are normally a few years behind the curve, but the long process also ensures everyone knows changes are coming and can prepare.

In reality, as any installation to the later standard does not fail an earlier one (except perhaps one with 2.51m reach to  bathroom sockets) its not a problem if folk work to the newer issue, it will still be considered to have met or exceeded the minimum requirement.

Mike.

The HSE refer to ESQR 2002 but ESQR has had some updates since 2002, eg


2003/2004: Various technical amendments to schedules.
2006 (Amendment): Extended scope to offshore waters (GB Territorial Sea and Renewable Energy Zone), updated British Standard definitions, and added provisions for tree-related supply interruptions.
2013 (Amendment): Further technical updates, according to www.legislation.gov.uk/.../schedules


There are also other things like

Rented Sector Safety (2025–2026): New regulations for the Social Rented Sector came into force on November 1, 2025, with full compliance for existing tenancies required by May 1, 2026

If you were to do a cost/benefit analysis of the change in the legislation, would it say that it is worth it?

Suppose a building was designed to the 17th edition, but due to delays in building it's only now ready to connect to the public supply.  Is the electrical installation now so unsafe that it shouldn't be connected? How much would it cost to rip out (some of) the electrics and do it again?

Bear in mind that once something has been connected, it will only be disconnected if the DNO thinks it is so unsafe that it must be disconnected immediately.  There will still be houses out there wired to the 13th or 14th editions.

Simon Barker said:

If you were to do a cost/benefit analysis of the change in the legislation, would it say that it is worth it?

Sometimes cost/benefit get put aside and legislation and regulations need to be updated.

Fault Detection Devices (AFDDs) were not mandatory in the 17th Edition of BS 7671

SPD type 2 were defined as devices suitable for installation

EVSE were in the 17th BUT significantly expanded upon in the 18th Edition

EICR (Electrical Installation Condition Report) became mandatory in England under the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020.
It was required for new tenancies from 1st July 2020 and for existing tenancies from 1st April 2021.

The legal definition of a Higher-Risk Building (HRB) in England was introduced through the
Building Safety Act 2022 (which received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022) and finalized through secondary legislation, specifically The Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023

Sergio Fernandez said:

Should the ESQCR be updated in line with at least every edition of BS7671, thus it should NOW refer to BS7671 18th edition?

It would seem perfectly reasonable to do so, but that is a decision which only Parliament can make.

Mike has mentioned parliamentary procedure. The simplest means of amending existing Regulations (negative procedure) is that Amendment Regulations are laid on the big table in each house (the big one in the middle in front of the Speaker in the Commons) for 40 days and if no objection is received, the Regulations become law.

The original version of ESQCR 2002 referred to, "British Standard Requirements for Electrical Installations BS 7671 : 2001 IEE Wiring Regulations 16th Edition ISBN 0 85296 988 0, 2001 (as amended by Amendment No. 1 (AMD 13628) February 2002)".

The words in reg. 1(5) were substituted (6.4.2009) by The Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/639), regs. 1, 2(2).

Simon Barker said:

If you were to do a cost/benefit analysis of the change in the legislation, would it say that it is worth it?

Evidently, the Secretary of State thought so in 2009. Parliament agreed.

Sometimes cost/benefit get put aside and legislation and regulations need to be updated.

Agree, but only for example in a time of war or epidemic, should that due process be set aside. The alternative of a ruling elite making it up as they go along and the dispensing of arbitrary 'justice' is something that countries have had to fight to eradicate to ensure safe and fair government. (and not always succeeding at all points in history)

Normally govt. should not be acting against the national interest.  

For updates to things like the ESCQR it is hard to see why the proper channels should not be followed.- if anything a temporary suspension for certain types of natural disaster or civil defence situation feels  more likely to be needed.

Mike

Evidently, the Secretary of State thought so in 2009. Parliament agreed.

Indeed, but nothing much has been put in the parliamentary in-tray since. ;-) One assumes the extra danger levels of the regs as they stood in 2009 are not so great. I also suspect some pushing by interested parties to table something to keep electrical safety on the agenda as it was not long after the introduction of part P, and the stats were starting to come through to show it was not really working to reduce accidents as much as promised .

Mike.

mapj1 said:

For updates to things like the ESCQR it is hard to see why the proper channels should not be followed.

They were in 2006 and 2009. Impact statements are included in the explanatory memoranda: 2006 and 2009. The latter is much briefer than the former. It says:

7. Policy background

7.1 ... The amendment [of ESQCR 2002] will maintain consistency between the ESQCR and British Standards which will continue to aid any enforcement requirements. Should the ESQCR not be amended to reflect the latest British Standard there is a risk of inconsistency as stakeholders may work to differing standards.

8. Consultation outcome

8.1 With the agreement of the Better Regulation Executive these Regulations have not been subject to public consultation. This is because BS 7671 was revised by the British Standards Institute (BSI) and the Institution of Engineering & Technology (IET) on a fully consultative basis (the process for developing BSI standards involves consultation with relevant bodies so that consensus can be reached on what standards are appropriate).

So, there seems to be very little for the Government to do when a new edition of BS 7671 is published.

I understand the "non ambulatory" point of view, but we're rapidly ending up with different bits of legislation (or guidance based on legislation) that each refer to different versions of BS 7671 - the ESQCR, Buildings Regs, The Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (possibly more). It might be nice if they could maintain consistency at least. If rapidly updating lots of different bits of legislation is too costly could they at least have one piece of legislation (Legislative References to Standards perhaps) to which all other legislation refers (e.g. to "British Standard Requirements for Electrical Installations") and that one piece refers to the specific version of BS 7671 - so updates only means changing once place, and it all remains consistent?

   - Andy.