Author Topic: Regulatory Reform Order  (Read 37117 times)

Offline p.b.morgan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2005, 02:43:40 PM »
Go back to first principles. How much information does a designer or an enforcer/ approving authority need? If anything is missed out then it won't be considered as 'it's not in the guidance'. Remember there's always a Steering Group and then the list of consultees who all want their view incorporated.

Did see an early version of the first RRO guidance document and it was absolutle HUGE. Everything anyone could have wanted was in there which would then have inevitably led to the reaction ' can't find it'.

Guidance is just that but individuals with a specific role are looking for support for their needs. These will be expressed in vague terms when asked but will land on you very heavily if something has been omitted.

Oh and don't forget how litigious we are now.

Balancing all that is quite a task. Have you all seen Rosemarie Everton's piece in last moinths Fire Prev and FEJ? She posits that government is in favour of flexibility ie IRM rather than the clarity that might be afforded by the RRO and its supporting documents including guidance on enforcement.
Penny

Offline p.b.morgan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2005, 02:45:43 PM »
Go back to first principles. How much information does a designer or an enforcer/ approving authority need? If anything is missed out then it won't be considered as 'it's not in the guidance'. Remember there's always a Steering Group and then the list of consultees who all want their view incorporated.

Did see an early version of the first RRO guidance document and it was absolutle HUGE. Everything anyone could have wanted was in there which would then have inevitably led to the reaction ' can't find it'.

Guidance is just that but individuals with a specific role are looking for support for their needs. These will be expressed in vague terms when asked but will land on you very heavily if something has been omitted.

Oh and don't forget how litigious we are now.

Balancing all that is quite a task. Have you all seen Rosemarie Everton's piece in last moinths Fire Prev and FEJ? She posits that government is in favour of flexibility ie IRM rather than the clarity that might be afforded by the RRO and its supporting documents including guidance on enforcement.
Penny

Bemused

  • Guest
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2005, 03:39:43 PM »
I understand the complexities of trying to produce a guidane document to satisfy everyone as well as meet with the objective of supporting legislation.  

The point of society being more litigious is surely a strong reason for steering clear of a prescriptive approach and taking great strides not to preconceive the circumstances attributable to any building type or pre-empt the risk assessment and risk management process of the "Responsible Person".

If we allow the RRO supporting guidance to be hijacked by the "it says it in the book" brigade, how are we moving forward ad adopting the principles of risk management?

If the guidance documents appear to provide all the answers surely we're in danger of the "Responsible Person" relying on the guidance and failing to take responsibility for adequately managing risk?

I just can't get my head around the reconciliation of the move to invidual responsibility incorporating risk management, and the production of building specific guidance that by implication preconceives the potential risks involved.

It seems to me that Doctor Dolittle's Pushme-Pullyou is at work somewhere!

Chris Houston

  • Guest
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2005, 03:57:32 PM »
Quote from: Bemused
I understand the complexities of trying to produce a guidane document to satisfy everyone as well as meet with the objective of supporting legislation.  

The point of society being more litigious is surely a strong reason for steering clear of a prescriptive approach and taking great strides not to preconceive the circumstances attributable to any building type or pre-empt the risk assessment and risk management process of the "Responsible Person".

If we allow the RRO supporting guidance to be hijacked by the "it says it in the book" brigade, how are we moving forward ad adopting the principles of risk management?

If the guidance documents appear to provide all the answers surely we're in danger of the "Responsible Person" relying on the guidance and failing to take responsibility for adequately managing risk?

I just can't get my head around the reconciliation of the move to invidual responsibility incorporating risk management, and the production of building specific guidance that by implication preconceives the potential risks involved.

It seems to me that Doctor Dolittle's Pushme-Pullyou is at work somewhere!

I second that, although it saddens me if the powers that be make decisions based on how best to avoid litigation rather than what they think is in the public interest.

If risk management is the way forward, then I think we need a better understanding of risk management at all levels.  I also think we need a few court cases (not just ones after lives have been lost) to demonstrate the importance of all this.

Bemused

  • Guest
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2005, 04:08:54 PM »
Do I take it then Chris that in your opinion at least my marbles may indeed be accounted for and not as I suspected misplaced never to be found again?

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2005, 07:10:58 PM »
I am reminded fo my years in the 1970s, when one of my jobs was to write guidance and codes for fire insurers. Our policy in drafting guidance took into account that  the geezer what it was for, was a man who began life probably as an insurance clerk. but had a technical mind and was bright and so became a surveyor. Therefore, everything was written very prescriptively on the basis that, sometimes it might be OTT or even downright stupid, but it would never be unsafe. That's what we now trendily call prescription. It worked, but might have the odd silly application, like when a leading insurance company was requring duplicate amber lamps and an audible warning to indicate isolation of a connection from a sprinkler system to a monitoring centre, even when there were no facilities to isolate the connection. So, we had to change the RULES (that's what they were) to  begin with the words ''Where facilities are provided for deliberate isolation .....'' In contrast, our American cousins, wrote rules that were so flexible as to be regarded as almost anarchy. Why? because they didnt take an insurance clerk and teach him a little engineering, they took an engineer and taught him a little bit of insurance. So, their view was that the geezer could make engineering judgements. The counterpart of the insurance clerk used to be the fireman, who knew a little but needed precriptive codes to follow like tramlines, and he wouldn't go far wrong but would be silly sometimes. The World has changed, guys. You would not get a job as an insurance surveyor if you came in as a youngster today without an engineering degree in many cases. And, the old fashioned fascist fire officer, with no technical depth has largely gone (OK Messey, a few are alive and well and living happily in a certain large met brigade, but even they will be pensioned off soon and are being replaced by a new breed. ) So, rigid prescription is no longer necessary (in either the fire insurance world or enforcing authorities.) So, in theory, Mr Mused ( would it be forward to call him BEE) is correct. But oopsie, haven't we forgotten someone. We will call him Al. (full name Al Employers). We cannot expect mr average employer to suddenly become a honours graduate in risk management. Sadly, there are profits to be made, widgets to be manufactured, wrinklies to care for, brats to teach. He is where the insurance clerk and the fireman were 30 years ago, and thats the good and educated employers. Oh dear, he will need prescription. But , damn! He can't have it. Who says? The trendies of the fire world who have convinced the Government that prescription=bad. Risk assessment= good. Alas, even poor Al was convinced of that for a while, until people threatened to take prescription away from him. Then he just stood there looking gormless and wondering what to do. But, hey, we mustn't tell him, cos that would be prescription (=bad, remember?) And we mustn't let these nasty fire brigade people tell him either, cos its sooooooo much more satisfying for Al to work it out himself. Except he won't. It's too difficult for Al, so he will just go back to making his profits and his widgets, caring for his wrinklies and teaching his brats, and putting all and sundry at risk. And who will stop him? Probably no one, cos remember we don't want those nasty firemen going out and making sure premises are safe. That's Al's job.
And all that will lie between safety and Armageddon will be the fascist fire safety officers, who will be needed more and more to go and kick Al into action and give him a bit of grief (and rightly so)---if their management ever allow them to.  Or of course we could rely on the capitalist consultants to go fix it for a Al, if he can afford them. Wait a minute, wasn't it them that convinced the Government that prescription=bad etc. OH, now it all becomes clear! Well, that's what we have to look forward to, UNTIL>>>>>>>> there is a disaster cos ole Al has been making his profits and his widgets and caring for his wrinklies and teaching his brats while forgetting about fire safety. Then a bright spark in the ODPM will think up a new idea. Why not employ fasicst fire officers to go out and make sure Al's premises are safe and issue something to that effect??? What could we call it? Duh, how about a fire certificate or something like that. Watch this space (and PRAY cos your prayers will be about as good as many employers fire risk assessments.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline dave bev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2005, 07:24:38 PM »
colin, i think you are turning into a sayer of sooths! though you seem to miss the bit about the members of the current ODPM and Cock up and Flee while the Opportunity exists Association sailing away into the sunset in a beautiful pea green boat, whilst those with extended working lives continue working towards the green pastures of the workhouse. and when rome eventually burns, as all dynasties do, will there be anyone left to pick up the pieces - almost poetic innit!

Offline AnthonyB

  • Firenet Extinguisher Expert
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2477
    • http://www.firewizard.co.uk
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #22 on: February 05, 2005, 12:44:11 AM »
From my experience the majority of different employers and premises I see, they all prefered prescription. They admitted a moan about being told or even nagged at by the fire officer, but said at least they knew where they stood.

Most companies want to stay within the law as quickly and simply as possible and get on with their business - great when the FPO came in and gave them a list of theings to do - employer grumbles a bit, but then simply follows the list and can get on with the widget production.

But now - he's got to decide for himself what's right - but that takes more time and money and how does he know he's correct afterwards anyway  - oh for the simple notice of steps!

A common conversation between consultant and management surveyor caused by non prescriptive risk based precautions is as follows:
MS - your FRA says we need to do x, what bit of law says we must
C - well x is required to ensure suitable and sufficient precautions against y as required by the FP(W)Regs
MS - but which bit of law actually says do x?
C - er, none as specifically as that,  our assessment of risk says in z situation x is the best method to safeguard y
MS- so how do I tell my client to spend on x if the law doesn't say?
C - because by not doing x he won't have suitable and sufficient precautions against y as required by.....
MS - so which bit of law says do x again????
C - ARRGH!

Pre '99 it was much simpler:
C - you need x to comply with your fire certificate
MS - OK, must comply with the specific conditions in it, musn't we - consider it done

So most premises don't bother with an FRA at all (not helped by ignorance through a pitiful lack of publicity about the scheme including by FSOs). Those that do usually produce one of the following;
- a tick sheet pro-forma from a brigade, website, or similar
- a H&S risk assessment that includes a paragraph on "Fire Precautions"
- a fire extinguisher service certificate ("this company looked around the office and told us what we needed....." yes, rubbin gtheir hands all the way to the bank)
- a copy of a FP Act (or even OSRP Act) Fire certificate

Those few places with cracking good FRAs are the few that probably didn't need long letters from the FSO in the first place under the old system

The idea and principle is good, but it will fall apart in reality, especially in multi-occupancies (our main area of work) where there will be no co-ordination across the building and anarchy - it' already happening, especially with alarm systems.

But as is traditional no one will be bothered until there is another Woolworths/hendersons/Rose & Crown etc etc

The old system is by no means perfect, but isn't it strange that we haven't had any really major fire disasters since the FP Act had eventually settled into place (Valley Parade a special exception)? Will this continue for the next 20 yrs under the new system?
Anthony Buck
Owner & Fire Safety Consultant at Fire Wizard


Extinguisher/Fire History Enthusiast

Fire Extinguisher Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-buck-36

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2005, 05:33:32 PM »
Probably not alas. We managed to get a fire certificate for a very large flagship building in a met area, even though, technically most of the building should be hatched out, by offering the I/o some chewing gum and telling him we would not object if he regarded the whole complex as put to a designated use, know what I mean guv, wink wink. Why was the client so keen to have a certificate? Because the Facilities Manager wanted exactly the situation good old Ant just described-one of certainty in which if senior management asked why things like staff training and drills HAD to be done the answer would be a shrug of the shoulders and a sorry but its cos its in the fire certificate, so we can't argue.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2005, 05:46:18 PM »
PS, Davey, I always was the said sayer. It's just you left wing radicals never listen until the news is what you want to hear.
PPS Mr Webmaster, As I like Davey really, the above does not contravene the newly espoused policy re personal attacks.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Gary Howe

  • Guest
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2005, 07:54:16 PM »
As I posted the original question, and having read all the postings one can only come to the conclusion that 9 out of 10 people are not in favour of the RRO or a risk based regime? (or have I got this wrong?)

So many people I have spoken to suspect (as do one or two people on this site) that it will go full circle and come back to a prescriptive regime. Lets all wait for something to go wrong then say na,na,na told you so!!!!!!!!!

How about a simple poll, with a "are you in favour of the RRO?" yes or no (bit late I know, but neverthless) perhaps we coould pass the findings to those in the ivory tower formulating the RRO.

Anybody got anything postive to say about the RRO, if so I would be pleased to hear it!!

Best Regards


Gary.

Offline dave bev

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 623
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2005, 11:21:40 PM »
the best radicals are always the free ones!

problem is gary its not a case of ner ner etc, it would be much better if what the future holds did touch all bases, but when in life did that ever happen. one persons cup of tea (and im not being tea-ist) doesnt always suit everyone.

i have a view that there is a difference between minimising risk and reducing risk, and there are those who would avoid both, but putting legislation in place is one hell of a task - im glad its not me thats doing it, but checks and balances need to be in place and im not convinced they are

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2005, 12:42:55 AM »
We shouldnt be too reactionary. The priciples are fine but its ludicrous to introduce a new regime and then tell employes that they cant be given definitive advice because everyone is scared to be prescriptive. Rgere is nothing wrong with a gradual introduction of the conept that the employer should be responsible for the safety of his employees.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates

Gary Howe

  • Guest
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2005, 09:42:44 AM »
Colin,

I agree with your sentiments, but is the RRO not going to put the formulation of a FRA onto building occupiers who are simply not competent to carry out this task, read a guide fine, but really?, are you going to be able to formally document the signifcant findings after reading a book. I reviwed a clients FRA the other day it was one side of A4, it told me that they had a maintenace contract on their fire extinguishers and in the event of a fire everybody leaves the building.

The fire authority's have not got the resources to visit all employers, so there must be thousands of FRA's up and down the country being carried out by people who frankly have not got a clue, and will still not have a clue after reading the proposed relevant guide.

Regards


Gary.

Offline colin todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Civilianize enforcement -you know it makes sense.
    • http://www.cstodd.co.uk
Regulatory Reform Order
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2005, 05:10:24 PM »
A prescriptive guide is better than nothing for these people.
Colin Todd, C S Todd & Associates