The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

[val]

Bluefire 1
I was under the impression that the burden of proving that x,y and z is reasonable lies with the resposible person.

Onus of proving limits of what is practicable or reasonably practicable

34. In any proceedings for an offence under this Order consisting of a failure to comply with a
duty or requirement so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, it is for the
accused to prove that it was not practicable or reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact
done to satisfy the duty or requirement.

I have taken this to mean that 'clever dick' has to prove that 70m single direction of travel in an underground bunker past tinker burning off copper cables, provides an equivilant level of safety because a sand bucket has been provided.

[Bluefire1]

Val

The answer to your question lies in how the ODPM see the thing working. A few years ago I was fortunate (or is that unfortunate !) enough to be invited onto one of the working parties looking at enforcement principles. The way that they expected it to be done ran like this.........

Currently the FSO only has to look at a what is basically a fixed formula.... x exits - x travel distance - x directions - low/high risk ...... fill in the blanks and look up the answer in the codes/guides.

Under the RRFSO RA approach, the reponsible persom will assess the risk and come up with his figures and say safe or not. In the case you cite for example.....if he says that all persons are fit, there have been no occurances over the past 10 years and they have fire fighting measures in place albeit a bucket of sand and he considers the process low risk then he is happy with his assessment and considers all is well. If the FRS disagree and say that the travel distance is excessive, then they will have to detail why they think that is the case. They will have to evaluate the risk and the sytems in place and run a RA matrix to come up with what they consider to be the "real risk" and thus say that the travel distance in the persons RA is excessive.

In other words, the owness is on the FRS to prove that the RA done is invalid and that further control measures are required before it can be deemed acceptable. I may have been a little over the top by saying that the full burden of proof was with the FRS but I think you can see where I was coming from. The days of a scale rule and a table of travel distances will have been consigned to the bin.

As for Section 34, the resposible person has not failed to comply... he has done the RA as required by Section 9 and provided what he sees as a reasonable and practicable solution to satisfy Section 8 as well. If the case went to court, the FRS would again have a burden of proof in proving that the case was suitable to be tried as a breach of Sections 8 or 9, they would have to say to the court that he had not done all R&P and state the reasons why, (the days of it was 5 metres over distance or the fire door was wedged open have gone as straight proofs).... it would be imposible to stand up in court and offer no reason why the case was there and why the FRS disagreed with the persons statement of doing all R&P.... the person would then have to satisfy the court in his defence that what he had in place was R&P in other words the burden of proof now shifts to him.

[steve walker]

I have emailed the ODPM and asked them if FRS can carry out fire risk assessments. They replied that they can, but only in a "consultant capacity" by setting up a separate company (for example, EFA); who can charge for their services.

So there we are, it appears that FRS can do FRA as long as they set up a separate company. I suppose this is "modernisation".

[val]

Steve, You are right, but what you weren't told is that the seperate company must be just that.  A limited company, totally devoid of the Fire and Rescue Authority. The employees of the new company, if currently employed by the Fire and Rescue Authority must resign and take up employment with the new company. (Pension and everything, etc.) If that goes bust then you are out of a job.

I'm not really an expert but I understand that after campaigning for years for this sort of freedom not many Local Authorities have taken it up. When you get down to the nitty gritty it just doesn't look that attractive. I suspect that some senior personnel in Local Authorities, etc are keen to try anything to raise their profile.

[Bluefire1]

There is at least one FRS that is looking at that possibility, using ex FSO's as the staff.

[AnthonyB]

Well the current FSO's need something to do after being phased out by civilian inspectors on a fraction of the wage......

[val]

AnthonyB
Now you have wound me up!

Take a look at the salaries on offer for consultants. Unless you have completed your time in  a local authority FRS, got your pension and are therefore happy to undercut a portion of the market, there isn't much difference.

Maybe it is a fraction of the wage in the depressed areas around Sheffield....

[kurnal]

Val
I agree with Anthony B
The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
One brigade I know has already replaced 4 former ADO/ Stno FSO posts with non uniformed staff on £25k, they are looking to take on 4 more this time circa £20k. Done through natural wastage and restructure. (my old job was one of these).
And "in the depressed areas around Sheffield" - or generally I guess north of Watford- the real world is that  these wage levels are considered pretty decent.
Whats the market for consultants?  The big players target the blue chip companies and design consultants, they offer inflated salaries to young graduates, who perhaps can make the  CFD model sing and dance but often have little contact with the real world in terms of the behaviour of fire and humans in concert. I quite often enjoy the odd one of these for breakfast.
But in the real world the bulk of the work in the private sector is in employers risk assessments and this is indeed a cut throat market. Theres plenty of work but on low margins - market forces rule here. And its not just because ex fire officers on a pension can under cut everybody else, its also because there are many large and small companies prepared to offer poor quality cut price risk assessments often based on a generic model that do often do not come anywhere near the definition of S&S.
I see the insurance companies and the threat of civil claims as a much stronger driver of compliance levels than fire authorities in the future, the way things are going.

[AnthonyB]

£20 & £25k for civilian FSO's is good - several I have seen advertised are only in the £11-£19k, meaning that some are being paid less than some parking ticket attendants!

From my experience private sector consultants are well paid in most companies

[Bluefire1]

As I recall, the 1993 Home Office report on the FP Act first introduced the concept, but I do not recall that it used the funny term decriminalization, but it said the same thing, and that was the term that people used for a while during the drafting of the WFPL.

Colin

The 97 FR(W) Regs were not drafted by the Home Office Fire Department dispite their report but by the HSE under the MHSW Regs with some members of the HO(FD) and CACFOA on the working party.. hence they go along with the usual 5 steps guidance of the HSW Act. The same happened with DSEAR and MSER.. HSE committees (such as HELA, HSG and PELG sub groups) with the DTI running close second and FRS running third... The HO(FD) was for the belt and braces approach but the need for the Gov to introduce the EC directives (which now include ATEX as well) forced them to bow to the RA way of doing things and eventually to ODPM pushing through (?) the RRFSO.... as they say... I know cos I was there and what a waste of time it was..

[wee brian]

Colin was talking about the HO consultation paper that predated the FP(W) Regs by a few years.

I've still got a copy somewhere. If I get bored I may look to see if it was driven by the EC or something else.

[novascot]

I have just been told that the RR (Fire)O Guides have been published. 150 pages each but I can't find a link on the ODPM website. Can anybody help? Thanks.

[novascot]

oops. Sorry, just found it. It is under Fire Safety Law. Lots of reading for everyone.

[kurnal]

I was very impressed today to hear the radio adverts for the RRO for the first time. WOW!! So different to the 97 launch of the wp regs. And one of my clients phoned to say they had received a letter from the Govt today.
Well impressed so far. Well done mr Bliar and co!!! For once it seems that fire safety matters!

[Ashley Wood]

I was told that they also are going to do something nationally on TV and in the press!