I think that the posts regarding the exporting of a PME earth are clouding the question somewhat.
Why can it not be understood that when an person is at work, HASAWA & if they are involved with electrical systems EAWR applies to them and their work.
Regardless of where this work is done.
Murdoch, why do you consider yourself above the law?
Spinlondon, if you are an IEE member of old, and still are a member, then you are voluntarily bound by the now IET rules of membership, i.e. their code of conduct, and if you are registered with the EngC then you are also bound by their code of conduct.
Diggaboy, I would be interested why you consider yourself above the law also.
Why is everyone so hung up on following an industry code of practice that does not have the same legal standing as an HSE ACoP, and treat it as law.
It's an industry guide, it is riddled with errors, even the new one, typo's, cross referencing errors and others, just like most of the IET books.
How can I explain the situation when the fundamental reasons are being dismissed as not relevant.
I have even extracted and posted the relevant regulations from HASAWA & EAWR that apply, and it seems nobody has read the posts to realise that this does apply to them, how can it not.
The suggestion that these laws do not apply is simply stupidity and a reminder of this has been sent to every NICEIC QS, and has been publicised by all the schemes, and the IET.
Her Majesty's Coroner wrote to them all under Rule 43 following a death of an innocent woman in her home.
Or are you all going to tell me that she didn't die, and that the QS wasn't prosecuted under HASAWA, and that the law didn't apply because you all know better than the Coroner's inquest, the jury, HSE, the expert witnesses, and the judge for the trial of the QS?
You might want to tell her young kids that their mother wasn't unlawfully killed by incompetent electrical work. See if they understand that.