FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: terry martin on April 12, 2007, 03:42:11 PM
-
Two fire authorities have recently revised its secondary employment policies.
The first FRS now prohibits all its employees from being involved in any employment or buisness relating to fire safety matters whether it is within the authorities area or not. This includes carrying out risk assessments, owning a company or being an MD of a company that provides FRA's. This also extends to authority personnel who are not actively carrying out fire safety duties. The grounds for this being 'conflict of interest'.
The second FRS now allows its employees to carry out RA's (even within their authority) with the view that 'who better to carry out the RA than the Auditors themselves, at least we'll have consistency'. The only restriction being, you cannot audit a place you have Risk Assessed.
The vastly differing views amazes me.
Who's right?
-
The one which doesn't get caught in a major b***s up.
-
The first one.
You don't tend to see police officers selling fee based serivices on complying with the law on the side, or HSE inspectors, I don't expect it of a fire service either.
-
Does this mean full time firefighters cannot perform retained firefighter duties?
-
Workingin your own patch is an outrageous conflict of interest. I keep hearing of Inspecting Officers dropping business cards with people asking for advice. This has got to be stamped out.
-
The second FRS will be in a difficult position if their 'auditor'/inspecting officer decides that his/her colleague's FRA is inadequate or if, in defence of enforcement action, the duty holder responds by reference to the FRA. This selling of related services by enforcement authorities or their current employees has got to be stopped. The HSE have been known to give advice but I have never thought of inviting them to carry out my H&S risk assessments for me.
-
I have to agree with wee brian, don't work your own patch, there must be a conflict of interest
-
I would say there is a definite conflict of interest working within your area. It is also an unfair advantage in getting business in the first place.
But on the other hand... Is it any different from Fire Authorities supplying commercial fire training?
-
Workingin your own patch is an outrageous conflict of interest. I keep hearing of Inspecting Officers dropping business cards with people asking for advice. This has got to be stamped out.
I must say I’ve never heard of I.O's dropping business cards. all the I.O's I know are far to concerned of the consequences (it is a sackable offence). but i do agree with wee Brian that it is an outrageous conflict of interest to carry out RA's within your authorities area. the list of possible complications is endless.
However, I do not see too much of an issue with serving FRS employees who do not work within a fire safety capacity, carrying out RA's in other authority areas.
If they are not an I.O, or working within Fire Safety, and its not their area, then in my opinion there's no conflict of interest.
-
But if they are not an IO or working in Fire Safety, how competent are they?
-
do they not earn enough money in their normal job?
-
Mike
I shall be interested in Terry's response to your point.
Conqueror
-
Civvy
There is no conflict of interest in extinguisher training by FA's.....its hardly an enforcement matter who trains people to use extinuishers.
Conqueror
-
If you or a partner own a premises and you are a serving firefighter in Brigade 1, how do you comply with the legislation as you are competent and therefore must carry out and FRA yourself?
-
You may have just found the one exception, Jokar.
-
Mike
I shall be interested in Terry's response to your point.
Conqueror
How competent is anyone? Some are Very competent, some are ok and some are fly-by-night, as you would find everywhere unfortunately.
Being competent should be irrespective of them being a Ff. it neither qualifies them nor should it exclude them.
I know a lot of Ff's who have secondary employment and are fully qualified in their respective fields, such as Architects, Engineers, Mechanics, electricians, First Aid instructors etc etc. Some own their own companies. I see this being no different.
-
Terry I agree, I know people who have become qualified first aid instructors courtesy of their FRS and then gone on to provide training privately and make good money doing it.
So what is wrong with a well trained IO demystifying some of the hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo surrounding the RA process and making a few quid on the side?
So long as the IO is honest and ethical and gives the best advice and is not afraid to criticise or make recommendations to improve the premises that will cost his "client" money, there is nothing wrong with it.
-
Mark 50
I am not aware that this topic involved IO's. The mail crux relates to FF's doing FRA's and are they fully competent. I was also intersted in the reply relating to FF's having other jobs [ electricians, mechanics etc] From my 30 years in the fire service I found that some used the fire service as there second job....and came to work on the fire station for a rest.. as there " first" job paid more!!
Terry you managed to answer by observation by saying nothing.....just spin!
The other contributor mentioning retained duties.. what a poor example.....as I thought fire fighting and associated duties was the job of a FF............................but perhaps i'm wrong in this new age of the fire service......Heaven help us all!!
Conqueror.
-
Mark 50
Terry you managed to answer by observation by saying nothing.....just spin!
Conqueror.
Spin? That was not my intention Conqueror, just trying to demonstrate my point. I have no vested interest or agenda to get across here, just merely stating my personal views.
the original question was about all serving FS Personnel including I.O's, but the thread of comments about conflict of interest has moved us into the senario of non Fire Safety personnel.
However, a direct answer to your question would be... Some have spent years in fire safety accruing experience and qualifications but have decided for whatever reason to go back to station life. others sadly are winging it.
with regards to shaunmckeever's comment. i think the point was of whole time Ff working for another brigade (maybe in their home town) as a retained Ff for extra income. this would not be an issue if i've read the policy right.
-
If you are competent and qualified as a non- fire safety employee of the Fire and Rescue Service ,I see no conflict of interest.If you then subsequently join the said department then someone else should audit your FRA.The problem could occur where it is not suitable or sufficient as this could reflect poorly on the FRS and involve possible legal proceedings against the individual who could then be disciplined -theoretically.Under the Human Rights Act,arguably,it should be difficult to stop people in the FRS from doing it unless,as is the case in the Fire Safety Department there is a direct conflict of interest.The main issue here is that some people are envious that public servants are selling their knowledge and market forces are the driver.No one complains when doctors book of a shift at the NHS hospital and walk over the road to the private one for another shift!
-
No one complains when doctors book of a shift at the NHS hospital and walk over the road to the private one for another shift!
I disagree.
-
Conqueror
The main crux of the question was about secondary employment in a fire safety based field. I would consider retained duties to be fire safety based. The first FRS that Terry referred to prohibits ANY fire safety based employment. To me this includes retained firefighter duties either in or out of the area of the brigade. It is quite right that there must be no conflict of interest. Retained duties or fire risk assessments outside the area of the brigade concerned, in my view would be not be a conflict of interest. I believe the bigger issue must be the nature of the activity and what impact that might have on the firefighter to perform his duties. A firefighter must come to work refreshed and ready to do his job. A firefighter must not perform a non-fire brigade in his secondary employment where there is a significant likelihood that an injury might be incurred thus preventing them from doing their primary job. Performing retained duties might actually carry a greater risk of injury than carrying out fire risk assessments. This should be of greater concern to the FRS.
On a minor point, I don’t agree that the ‘first job’ is necessarily the most highly paid job. I believe many firefighters earn significantly more from their secondary employment than they do from their primary employment.
-
Shaun
Unless things have changed a lot retained duties are not fire safety based. The retained duties are to be called out to crew the fire appliances on call outs. Although there was a lot of disagreement about the wholetime firefighters carrying out retained duties (taking away jobs from the retained) in some areas it is almost the only way to get cover during the day. There is always the secondary arguement that stopping a wholetime fireifghter from crewing a retained appliance is rather like cutting your nose off to spite your face.
As far as I can see the main thread of this arguement is whether or not a trained Fire Safety Officer who is an active Inspecting Officer should be allowed to carry out fire risk assessments on the grounds of conflict of interest and if so where and under what circumstances.
The other thread is whether people who are employed in the fire service but not in an active fire safety role are competent to carry out Fire Risk Assessments.
-
Mike I guess it depends on your defintion of fire safety. To me extinguishing a fire is fire safety. It is a more physical way of implementing fire safety based duties but nevertheless it is fire safety. I understand that most fire officers perception of fire safety is about fire risk assessments, fire engineering strategies and the like but I think that is a narrow perception.
-
Local Authority EHO's do loads of private work within their field of expertise. Hasn't the principle already been broken by AI's who see no conflict of interest when acting as judge and jury for building proposals. Are doctors acting improperly when the offer an operation more speedily within the own private practise?
As long as FSO does not allow a conflict of interest to effect their advice then they should be OK. If they do, they should face disciplinaary proceedings.
-
The comparison with the medical profession is not relevant. There is no enforcement role.
Following this line of logic you could argue that a soldier keeping the peace in one of the worlds trouble spots is entitled to go and fight for the enemy when off duty.
I would not have a particular problem with fire safety officers doing a bit on the side if it is open and up front, if the fire authority is aware of it and they do not enforce standards in the premises that they cover as a private consultant. But most who do this work do it in a surrepticious and underhand way without the fire employers knowledge and so may be gamekeeper and poacher at the same time. This is wide open to corruption, just like those notorious gangland cases in which police officers were given an inducement to turn a blind eye.
For this reason most enforcement officers are required by law to declare all inducements offered or hospitality received and record it officially in a document that is accountable and open to public scrutiny. I suggest that offering a service for a fee is exactly such an inducement that should be recorded.
So I would say, to do it right and protect yourself, apply for permission, provide a list of your clients to the fire authority, declare vested interests, keep your business and enforcement roles completely seperate- Never never tout for business whilst wearing your uniform or as part of your enforcement duties.
If theres one thing that does frustrate me its that poor advice given by a recruit firefighter on the trucks with no experience or knowlege of fire safety enforcement or standards has 100% more credibility with the public than good advice from an independent consultant with 35 years in the industry but wearing a suit.
-
Kurnal,
I totally agree. only if there is complete transparency can it be done fairly and in the right way
one minor point, the comparison to the police 'turning a blind eye' is a bit severe, what the police officer is doing will have a much more sever impact on the community
-
Shaun, I think we must agree to disagree, In my book fire fighting is a different bird from fire safety. Fire Safety is about stopping the fire starting in the first place, if it does start restricting its growth and development and making sure that no-one gets hurt. Fire fighting is the result of fire safety failing.
To put it in the medical field fire safety is like stopping smoking so you reduce the risk of lung cancer, fire fighting is the surgery chemo etc. to try and cure it when you've got it.
I would agree that fire fighting is a good way of learning how fires start and how they develop but it does not cover the prevention and precautions side.
I agree with kurnal there is a problem that because someone is a firefighter they do have more kudos irrespective of their knowledge.
-
The real issue here is whether the advice given following the risk assessment is any different when given as a uniformed officer or as a suited consultant.
Assuming that the person is competent then the advice should be the same and justifiable.
The problem for the employer might be that, if as has been suggested, the uniformed inspector does not audit his own Non-uniformed risk assessment, then is he able to perform his duties to the level as required by his FRS employer?
I would expect as a Fire Safety Manager that I would be able to send any of my officers out to inspect and audit any premises within my area. I would not expect to have to ascertain first wether they had already carried out the RA as a private individual and therefore barred themselves from this job.
That said it follows that they should be allowed to carry out FRA in areas outside the area of their uniformed employment.
-
Evidently, the assessor for the "Rose Bowl", hampshire County Cricket Ground, has signed the FRA as a serving officer of the local fire authority. can this be possibly true? There is a major conflict of interest here.
-
I've carried out a lot of inspections of various types within my areas of employment, offered advice, 'suggested' where things should be located and even carried chairs around and helped tie them together at tented events to make sure they went in the best positions to retain escape routes - but wouldn't dare or even dream of doing their risk assessments for them. It's one thing to be helpful but another to take someone else's responsibility and set yourself up for the 'firing line, when things go badly wrong!
The earlier point about uniformed advice is a good one. Advice given from such sources seems to have sometimes been based upon the fact that the occupants will be able to escape and the FRS will put the fire out - rather than following published guidance and seeking to prevent the fire in the first instance.
-
If the off duty folks have professional indemnity insurance and their employers are aware of their ‘off duty’ employment I don’t have a problem.
-
The comparison with the medical profession is not relevant. There is no enforcement role.
Following this line of logic you could argue that a soldier keeping the peace in one of the worlds trouble spots is entitled to go and fight for the enemy when off duty.
I would not have a particular problem with fire safety officers doing a bit on the side if it is open and up front, if the fire authority is aware of it and they do not enforce standards in the premises that they cover as a private consultant. But most who do this work do it in a surrepticious and underhand way without the fire employers knowledge and so may be gamekeeper and poacher at the same time. This is wide open to corruption, just like those notorious gangland cases in which police officers were given an inducement to turn a blind eye.
For this reason most enforcement officers are required by law to declare all inducements offered or hospitality received and record it officially in a document that is accountable and open to public scrutiny. I suggest that offering a service for a fee is exactly such an inducement that should be recorded.
So I would say, to do it right and protect yourself, apply for permission, provide a list of your clients to the fire authority, declare vested interests, keep your business and enforcement roles completely seperate- Never never tout for business whilst wearing your uniform or as part of your enforcement duties.
If theres one thing that does frustrate me its that poor advice given by a recruit firefighter on the trucks with no experience or knowlege of fire safety enforcement or standards has 100% more credibility with the public than good advice from an independent consultant with 35 years in the industry but wearing a suit.
I don't really have an opinion on the matter of serving firemen also working privately as fire risk assessors, other than to agree with Kurnal that I too have experienced, on many occasions, customers slavishly following the incorrect information given by an inexperienced fireman rather than the correct information given by an experienced fire alarm engineer just because the former was 'a fireman and therefore must know everything about anything as long as it is even slightly 'fire' related'
I was also once informed by a fire officer of many years service (and I quote) ' that most firemen have an overestimated opinion of their own importance and ability which is entirely based upon, and continually reinforced by, the fact that, when they are driving around in their big red lorry, very small boys wave to them excitedly, and that 'slappers' in mini-skirts want to have sex with them'
I must admit that I almost choked with laughter at his words, then thought about applying for a job as a fireman and now just believe that he must have been exaggerating!
-
I never found a slapper in a mini skirt that ever wanted to do anything but slap me.
So I used to keep them away from the good looking guys (looking after their best interests of course).
-
If the off duty folks have professional indemnity insurance and their employers are aware of their ‘off duty’ employment I don’t have a problem.
That seems a little bit simplistic. Surely you would additionally expect them to be competant and free from comflicting interests?
Again, I suggest that we don't allow HSE inspectors to undertake health and safety fee work, police officers to provide fee based legal services or customs officers to provide fee based imigration or customs services. The normal rules are that those who enforce legislation are not also who who are paid to comply with legislation.
It seems that only when it relates to fire, is this even a subject of debate.
-
The whole subject is about conflict of interest and competence. You can not enforce and undertake paid assessment work in the area you operate and just as important you can not be an assessor without the relevant competence. I heard that a retiring fire brigade personwith no FS experience has purchased the guides and set herself up as a risk assessor. She is probably setting herself up for a big fall but until that work is completed or challenged who knows whether she is competent or not.
-
I assume that without the relevant experience you could not obtain the insurance required and the FA would not permit you to work within your own brigade area.
-
You cannot enforce and undertake paid assessment work in the area you operate and just as important you can not be an assessor without the relevant competence.
I cannot see any person argue with that statement. But instead of different groups sniping at each other they should get together and form an association of fire safety specialists or lobby either the IFE or the FPA to form such an association. The present situation of two or three registers of competent personnel is not an ideal solution. Companies and individuals would have to prove there was no conflict of interest, they had the necessary insurance and were competent to undertake the relevant work.
I am sure RP`s would be delighted if they could go to a one stop shop for any fire safety advice and be confident that any services they received would be of the highest standard.
It has worked for other professions so why not the Fire Safety Profession.
-
I think this whole issue will be sorted out when the first fatality occurs because some untrained, unqualified, incompetant ex firefighter makes a testicles of a risk assessment. Thats the way it usually works.
I'm in Fire Safety in a F&R Service and if it were up to me there are existing safety officers who I would not want anywhere near a single room doll's house in the middle of a desert to fire assess.
-
From the BRE/LPCB
We are drafting a scheme for the certification of Fire Risk Assessors at the moment and hope to be able to launch in the next month or so. It is our intention to then list certificated Assessors in the Red Book.
Angela Richards
Special Projects Manager
LPCB/BRE Certification
Bucknalls Lane
Garston
Herts WD25 9XX
Tel: +44 (0)1923 665136
Fax: +44 (0)1923
-
I'm not in the fire service; neither am I a consultant. If I were a consultant, I would find the whole concept of employees of fire authorities (whose wages I, as a taxpayer, pay) using knowledge gained in that employment to compete with me (whilst they remain in that employment - it's a completely different matter if the leave and set up in private business). If they were using their position as a public servant to directly promote and support the private business they run concurrently, I would be going to the Competition authorities.
This must be up to the employers to deal with; either allowing it (and being able to publicly justyify that position), or prohibiting it. A joint, open letter to CFOA may be a start?
-
Whilst I agree entirely with you fishy (from my point of view as a consultant), what would be your view if a fire authority itself set up a unit marketing consultancy services to private companies offering risk assessments etc inside or outside its own area?
-
Fishy,
If a serving fire safety officer, (or worse), was using their primary employer's name and reputation to gain work and/or credability then I would find that wholly unacceptable. However, using experience gained on fire safety matters is not wrong or unethical. Many professions, such as doctors, lawyers and H & S use their accumulated experience to do private work. It seems to me that there is a little whiff of professional snobbery here. The higher up the food chain you go the more you 'can be trusted' to maintain the chinese walls that allow, for example, partners in legal practices to represent both sides of a dispute. Additionally as employment practices become ever more fragmented, with part-time or fixed term contracts proliferating, how is your position tenable? The issue of conflict of interest from a legal point of view only really arises if the individual has a statutory enforcement role and a privately remunerated advisory role to the same client. (Although the position of approved inspectors in the building proffession doesn't seem to have a problem with this!)
On Kurnals point of fire authority's and trading companies, look at EFA(T) Ltd. (clue Essex Fire Authority (Trading) a wholly owned arm of Essex Fire Authority with links from the Authority's home web site advertising fire risk assessments on a commercial basis. The legal fig leaf of this being an arm's length trading company is really a bit of fiction. If this is not trading on a publicly funded reputation, I don't know what is?
-
Forgive me for a moment while I take this argument down a blind alley for a moment: But should Fire Authority staff be allowed to conduct FRAs on their own Authority's premises and then (perhaps even the same person or an IO from the same team) audit them? (ie judge & jury??)
This is happening across the UK. Perhaps it's not much of a problem compared with other current FS issues, but it does fit in with the 'conflict of interest' subject matter of this thread.
Some bigger Authorities have scores of buildings and across the UK, hundreds of buildings, housing 1000s of relevant persons are involved. Some of these buildings (for now!!) have sleeping risk. Others include workshops, offices and other support infrastructure - all assessed and audited in-house.
The 'proverbial' hit the fan some years back when I made a fuss about my own Station which-at that time- had numerous problems that we (the Authority) wouldn't have permitted elsewhere. This included pole houses which directly connected the appliance room to the sleeping accomodation with virtually no compartmentation. Inadequate fire doors, No AFD -not even a manual fire alarm system and much much more......
I was threatened with disciplinary action and was told 'off the record' that "We would never prosecute ourselves" and "What's the risk? - we are all firefighters".
So, in the interests of impartiality, should neighbouring Fire Authorities be used for auditing & enforcement fire safety of buildings belonging to a specific Brigade???
And lastly, although I agree that there should be some control of IOs to avoid conflict of interest, how dare my fire authority ban me from doing anything fire related off duty - including voluntarily helping my daughter's Guide group get a safety badge (yes, I have had that verified!! - & then ignored it)- whilst they continue to Police themselves in relation to the RR(FSO)?
-
Messy,
I agree with most of your sentiments. As a bit of a wishy washy liberal, I take increasing objection to being owned, body and soul, by an employer. I can live with the blackberry, the causal changing of working days, the almost obligatory 'take it or leave' attitude, but this 'we own you' and 'you cannot be trusted to act professionally' is really getting to me.
By the way some Fire Authorities are now going down the peer review route to audit the assessments carried out in their own premises.
-
With regards auditing my own RA on a station, if I am missing things on the RA, then I would miss the same thing at the audit stage, and if that is the case then I am not a very competent FSO so clearly shouldn't be auditing anyone elses RA never mind doing them. The conflict of interest only comes into it if I am doing a half ar*ed job of the RA, and claiming it is satisfactory during the audit. Or if the audit showed poor compliance that no action was taken over. It all depends on how much pride you take your job.
-
Messy,
By the way some Fire Authorities are now going down the peer review route to audit the assessments carried out in their own premises.
Sounds more like a job justification thing - carrying out meaningless duplications to keep people in a position.
-
Civvy FSO, I disagree, the conflict of interest comes about if you are doing RA in your Service area and then are unable to carry out the audit required by your service employer on the same premises (because that would be un-ethical). In fact to call it a conflict of interest is probably incorrect, it is probablymore a breach of contract since through your own actions you have made yourself unavailable to do the work that you are contracted to do.
-
I was talking in particular about doing a risk assessment on the fire station that I work at and then auditing it. I agree it would be unethical to do RA's for businesses in my own area, and would also be uncomfortable doing them anywhere else.
But... Ignoring ethical issues, FRS policies and whether or not I personally would take on a RA for a local business:- (Just trying to make a point here...) So long as I am competent at doing risk assessments and competent at auditing RA's, why would I not be capable of auditing an RA I had done? The only conflict arises if despite being competent at auditing RA's, I do a bad job of actually completing one, then audit it and ignore how bad it is. The possibility of that happening makes it a conflict of interest, but as mentioned before, so long as I do a proper job of both the RA and the Audit then where is the crime?
-
Fire authorities should concentrate on improving the standard of FSO's in their role as auditors. Too often I see deficiencies notices with obscure comments that do not under any circumstances warrant consideration within any FRA.
Examples: RA to show
Type of paint used on walls
Type of furnishings used
Risk of gas cooker in a kitchen
Findings - yes - Significant?
Whether we like it or not responsible persons still pick up on comments made by a FSO no matter the basis for the comment.
Fire authorities - sort your own house out first with better training and monitoring of staff. The word consistency comes to mind.
We then may start to convince those responsible for FRA that they have a duty to set, manage , monitor and maintain.
Good to see a number of FA's offering better advice on where to look for assistance.
-
Examples: RA to show
Type of paint used on walls
Type of furnishings used
Risk of gas cooker in a kitchen
Findings - yes - Significant?
Sometimes they would be yes.
Paint: Possibly not, but look up Lewisham Housing fire 2/1/1991/ Layers of solvent based paint on walls is suspected to have blistered off, then acted as an accelerant. (But I personally would never expect mention of it.)
Furnishings: Do they meet BS and the correct grade for the purpose, i.e. Licensed premises. Mentioning this in the RA is often justifying a lower risk due to the equipment meeting set specifications.
Gas cooker: Quite often the best ignition source in a building. I would expect combustibles to be kept away from this area, and with that being a preventive measure, I would expect to see mention in the RA. Also, anything in place where a cook would know to turn the cooker off in the event of evacuation? The last thing FRS need when they attend is a second fire in the kitchen because the cook never turned the chip pan off...
Don't forget the whole point of a risk assessment is also showing where your risks are low. So furniture meeting BS, water based paint, a well managed kitchen with good procedures, are all things that can easiliy be included in a risk assessment to show that risks ARE as low as reasonably practicable.
-
In reply to CivvyFSO
I disagree, there is no requirement to show the low risks within a fire risk assessment . Good idea maybe, but picked up on a deficiencies notice generally unnecessary.
Do not lose sight of the emphasis on significant. What is wrong with the responsible person confirming good practice in some other way?
What about those who do not have to record the risk assessment?
One of the principle changes within the new regulations was for FA's to audit. It is for this reason that I feel FA's should give better training and guidance to staff.
The competent risk assessor can find themselves squeezed between the c**boys and the inadequately trained FSO.
I am not tarring all with the same brush, however if I have learnt anything since moving from enforcer to consultant 7 years ago it is that the whole approach is significantly different, with nowhere to hide. Perhaps part of the training should be for IO's to be given an opportunity to better understand the consultants role.
Interesting that CivvyFSO jumped to 'worse case' scenario examples. I accept that in certain premises such information would be significant however I can assure you that my examples are bordering on the 'jobs worth'
-
I Quote...(''One of the principle changes within the new regulations was for FA's to audit. It is for this reason that I feel FA's should give better training and guidance to staff.'')
Sorry, not sure what 'regulations' you are refering to!!!! I assume you mean the RR(FS)O 2005? If so again accept my appologies as i cannot find anywhere within the Statutory Instrument that says that Fire and Rescue Authorities have a duty to Audit!! Only to enforce the requirements of the order!
May sound a bit picky but lets ensure if putting forward and argument we actually know what the legislation actually says.
It does say that FRA's should do this with regard for any guidance issued by the secretary of state, this I believe is where through the CFOA policy directives, as well as through IRMP note 4 they are asked to consider risk based audit. ( by rights they can enforce however they see fit in line with the local IRMP)
Please correct me if I am wrong!
-
I am very clear what the Statutory Instrument says. The point I am trying to make when I refer to audit is the way FA's no longer set the standards (FP Act). I would be interested in knowing how else a FA can enforce without carrying out a risk based audit.
Too often we get bogged down with what the SI says rather than the practicalities of enforcement which is the where I am coming from.
To pursue the discussion I would welcome comments on my argument regarding the level of training given to those IO's in the front line. I sense that maybe the enforcement of the RRO is not as high on the list of some fire authorities agenda as the public would expect.
I apologise if I am wrong firelawmac but you sound like a fire officer hiding behind legislation.
I can only repeat that perhaps it would be to the benefit of all concerned if there were more opportunities for consultants and FA's to meet in order to exchange views.
-
I would be interested in knowing how else a FA can enforce without carrying out a risk based audit.
I apologise if I am wrong firelawmac but you sound like a fire officer hiding behind legislation.
stevew
I can appreciate where you are coming from! However surely the best way to 'Enforce the law' would be to concentrate on ensuring that any premises that comes within the scope of the RR(FS)O that has a fire, no matter how serious, is 'visited/audited as soon after the fire as possible! After all, if a fire has occured that requires an attendance from the FRS the fire authority would have reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.
Therefore the inspector would be enforcing the law by giving the responsible person the opportunity to show that the measures in place were 'reasonably practicable', as a defence.
Regardless of whether the tests are met and the information laid or not, the fact that this responsible person has firstly been investigated after a fire, and more importantly cautioned and interviewed under PACE, will spread like wild fire (pardon the pun) through the local community, sending the message that times have changed!! and also that they should be in no doubt that they WILL be held accountable, surely this has more mileage for ensuring compliance than giving them up to 5 weeks notice of an audit!
And in answer to your comment about me being a fire officer hiding behind legislation, that is not the case (your apology gracefully accepted) although i do have dealings with a number of enforcing authorities some of which are indeed fire and rescue authorities.
The issue about fire officers and consultants meeting to exchange views then i must agree! It would certainly be of help.
Fire officers carrying out these audits are apparently well trained at the Fire Service college 'Centre of Excellence'!!! however I personaly think the training isnt the problem, it is the inability of a few of these officers to be able to accept the change, and regardles of their personal views stick to laid down national protocol.
-
In reply to CivvyFSO
I disagree, there is no requirement to show the low risks within a fire risk assessment . Good idea maybe, but picked up on a deficiencies notice generally unnecessary.
I was not fighting the case for any of the low risks to be put on a deficiencies notice, but they should still be included on the list of significant findings if they have been made low by implemented measures. The significant findings should include the preventative/protective measures taken already and measures that will be taken, and that information may be mentioned on a deficiencies notice as an example of information to be recorded. (Highly unlikely paint would be mentioned, so the case you are talking about does sound quite odd.)
With regards to the people who don't have to record the information, it is generally quite easy to see straight away whether any sort of risk assessment has taken place. (Normally the blank look you get when you ask them if they have done one gives it away!)
-
The idea that an inspection should only be carried out after a fire is the same as closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The problem is not trying to get the RP to take precautions seriously after a fire, it is trying to get the RP to do the work before the fire.
The attitude is too much we've never had a fire so why do we need to carry out the work? Just look at the attitude to sprinklers.
Relying on prosecution after a fire will only be kicking the man when he's down, he's learnt, its the rest who never think it will happen to them who need the inspection.
I agree with CivvyFSO significant findings must include what is good as well as what needs to be addressed and should include the low risks. If nothing else it gioves a reason as to why certain items have not been addressed, we knew about it but in our judgment it was more important to address this other issue.
At the end of the day I can create a perfectly safe factory that will never have a fire, I just fire the staff, remove all the contents, cut off all the services and then demolish it.
-
Article 9(7) says that the responsible person must record the significant findings of the risk assessment including the measures that have been taken or will be taken in respect of basic fire precautions.
So you must set out the measures that are already in place and contributing to the fire safety standards of the premises. If you have an L1 alarm system and escape lighting to BS5266 you should say so. Whilst you dont need to say that you have painted the walls with emulsion a statement to the effect that the surface finishes of walls and ceilings are in accordance with appropriate National guidance is the right thing to do.
On enforcement theres a place for making an example of someone ( hot strikes!!) because everybody sits up and takes notice, but it must be part of a balanced approach - to include risk based reinspections, targetted inspections, thematic inspections. None is any good in isolation. I dont think we have taken enough action in the past after a fire. And many that have been taken have fallen flat on their face because of poor procedures. I think brigades should do more of all types of enforcement visits.
-
I feel that the discussion here has moved away from the subject of conflict of interest - which is a fascinating debate - to a bit of backbiting between consultants and inspectors.
As a highly trained, well versed and risk assessment proficient inspector I am not happy with some of the all encompassing comments that are being made. I would not broad-brush any proffession with any comments that I might choose to make, and would appreciate the same curtesy extended in return.
On a personal level I agree with the matter of not being "owned" by my employer, but cannot marry up the matter of carrying out FRAs within the same authority boundary in which I serve as an enforcing officer. Regardless of whether I only audit premises in which I have not carried out the FRA, I am likely to find myself auditing those carried out by colleagues on an increasingly frequent basis if this practice were to continue. It then becomes a constant challenge to ensure that the standard that I impose is totally impartial - and not one that I would like to argue with a barrister for the defence should things become messy.
Paul
-
well put paul, couldn't of put it better myself
-
I was looking through the news pages and found this, interesting?
Friday, 18 May 2007, 15:59 GMT
Reprieved firemen face new threat
Two firemen sacked for moonlighting but then reprieved on appeal are facing a fresh threat of dismissal.
Safety inspector Paul Williams, of Hillingdon Borough, and Andrew Slater, of Hayes Fire Station, were initially sacked for setting up a consultancy.
A High Court judge said no adequate reasons were given when Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott reprieved them.
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton upheld a challenge by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA).
Disobedience of orders
In literature for the firemen's business, Safesmart Ltd, Mr Williams was described as managing director and Mr Slater as operations director.
The company was said to be run by "current fire officers".
As well as safety inspections, it provided fire safety training and equipment.
Both men were charged with disobeying orders, with Mr Williams also charged with improper practice in using or attempting to use his position with the fire brigade for private advantage.
Mr Williams had been given dispensation to work outside his role, but only if it did not fall within the authority's area. Mr Slater had not sought permission.
Appeals had been dismissed by LFEPA's Discipline and Appeals Committee, but further appeals to Mr Prescott's office, considered by Parliamentary Under-secretary of State Jim Fitzpatrick MP, led to the reprieve.
At the latest court hearing, LFEPA said the men were guilty of a gross and flagrant breach of the rules.
"The public must be able to trust firefighters. The fire service is a uniformed service like the police," said Michael Supperstone QC.
"Because of the nature of the authority's statutory responsibilities and powers, it is essential that fire officers act with discipline and integrity."
The judge agreed the offences were "very serious indeed".
After Friday's judgement, the case will go back to the current Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, who will take into account the judge's ruling.
No indication of leave of appeal for the two firemen has been given.
-
Honest Jim of course was a LFB firefighter and a well versed FBU rep. The case itself goes back a number of years and is not one of the LFBs finest moments.
-
It happened in the Brigade i was in. The Senior D.O and ADO carried out fire safety businesses in other geographical areas , not covered by them and made a good job of it. I set up before i retired and did jobs out of my normal areas. The Brigade spent a fortune training me at the college before i retired, it seems daft not to make use of all that expertise.As long as you are not seen to be assessing and auditing in your area, that would be a conflict of interst.
-
I am not particularly familiar with this case but two points do strike me as a bit odd.
Firstly, when does a case such as this become vindictive? Irrespective of the rights and wrongs, how many bites of the cherry, using taxpayers money and at no risk to themselves, does a public authority have? On a purely personal level, I have to have sympathy with the 'defendants'.
Secondly, a significant proportion of FRS in the country now routinely give permission for their fire safety officers to do the exact same thing as these men are being hounded for. Consistency in the application of 'justice'?