FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Dave Harris on June 29, 2004, 07:20:04 PM
-
I would be grateful for your comments regarding Fire Risk Assessments carried out under the Workplace regs. Whilst I see some (in my opinion) very good assessments, a lot just consist of a tick box type form where, for instance a question asks: Is the means of giving warning in case of fire adequate? or: Is the means of escape adequate? Whilst a tick in the "Yes" box, if entered by a competent person could mean a perfectly good standard, it could also be the opposite.
The Workplace regs requires the preventive and the protective measures to be recorded if over five employed, would this include a fire alarm system or protected staircase for instance? I may be naive but I like to see what I call "control measures" to be identified in the assessment, i.e., means of giving warning, protected routes, exits etc, as well as identifying the safety measures in place it also helps for any employer who hasn't actually carried out the assessment to know which walls are required to fire resisting, which doors are required for means of escape, etc.
Thanks in anticipation
-
One of the things that Glyn Evans was advocating in parliament the other day was that there should be a specific requirement for a "plan". I think he had in mind the kind of drawing that comes with a fire certificate.
He may have a point, its difficult to record preventive and protective measures with a tick sheet.
-
Couldn't agree more Wee Brian. I have used fire defence plans on all my FRA's to show the advised outcomes (thankfully I have access to a CAD facility which does the plans for me!). The plans relay the protection measures and all fire defence features on a couple of A3 sheets instead of scads of tick box explanations. I'm not sure how I would achieve this without a CAD system and expert operators to generate the plans!
-
Dave
I use a questionnaire system covering the normal fire risk assessment areas. Each question has a reference number and a is worded for yes/no answers. Any 'no' answer has to have a corresponding remedial action. This is backed up by a set of plans based on the FPA certificate style. I use the the 'yellow route' to identify principle escape routes rather than structural protected areas as in a certificate. My strategy being to bring these routes up to that standard anyway.
The questionnaire is, perhaps, rather lengthy and in different premises some question groups are redundant; but I believe it is necessary to show that you have considered these aspects. Many RA's I see only list the deficiencies so you can't tell if all aspects have been considered.
Additionally, this format allows someone with limited training to conduct a meaningfull review using the plans and questionnaire for guidance. There are specific review questions included in the questionnaire.
Yes, I know this sounds like a cut-down fire certificate, but for this purpose I thought FPA certificates worked very well, whatever the shortcomings of the actual FPA.
Hope this helps.
-
Sadly most tickbox and similar FRAs that we see are completed by people with little idea.
E.g. When they tick yes to Is the means of giving warning in case of fire adequate? all they've done is note that the building has a fire alarm fitted that goes off every week. At a basic level this is OK, but they take no account of whether that system has adequate AFD, whether it's audible everywhere or if it has a battery back up etc
Extinguishers usually means that they've got some, not whether they suit the risk or not
MoE usually means they've got another door (regardless of fastening)
A common classic is the office manager who filled in the tick sheet FRA & didn't even know they have emergency lighting! (Damn these aesthetic sustained units - the old bricks were easy to spot)
When you are dealing with the corner shop example (as per the NW Brigades leaflet) this is fine, but large complex multi occ's are different.
We all may moan about brigade FPO's from time to time, but at least they have extensive training and experience whereas most FRAs I see are by untrained HR or Office Managers or by H&S people with no fire specific training other than what extinguisher to use
-
Sadly most tickbox and similar FRAs that we see are completed by people with little idea.
E.g. When they tick yes to Is the means of giving warning in case of fire adequate? all they've done is note that the building has a fire alarm fitted that goes off every week. At a basic level this is OK, but they take no account of whether that system has adequate AFD, whether it's audible everywhere or if it has a battery back up etc
Extinguishers usually means that they've got some, not whether they suit the risk or not
MoE usually means they've got another door (regardless of fastening)
A common classic is the office manager who filled in the tick sheet FRA & didn't even know they have emergency lighting! (Damn these aesthetic sustained units - the old bricks were easy to spot)
I agree 100% Many of them are filled in by people who don't have a clue about what they are assessing.
-
Thanks for the interest shown so far, although I agree entirely that in my opinion tick box type forms do not tell you anything about the hazards and risks in the premise and the control measures in place, but do they fulfil the requirements of the Workplace Regs?
-
I would doubt it, but until a few brigades actually start enforcing and prosecuting we won't have any case law to refer to. The flexibility of the guidance doesn't give any clues hence the wide variation in assessments - my guess is until either there are a few test cases or there is a more prescriptive framework (both unlikely) we'll not know.
Some brigades are starting to enforce FRAs under FP(W) but so far this extends to them requiring them to be done, not bothering to actually check the finished document.
If an FRA actually goes through the 5 stages in the guidance then it's on the right lines, but many just look at the fire precautions rather than a good look at ignition sources and combustibles.
It's not a new situation in safety - most supposed COSHH assessments carried out by workplaces are just a straight copy of the CHIP Hazard Data Sheet with no mention of the processes the substances are used for or the heirarchy of controls, etc
-
At least with FRA's the employer will give some thought to fire safety. If you consider every business in the land doing this it must have some impact.
Fire Brigades can then pick out those places that need a bit more and put them on the inspection list (when they get round to it)
Given that this is the best we can hope for would it be a better idea if we said that FRA's must me reviewed (signed?) at least once a year?
I know the idea that Risk assesments should be constantly updated but in the real world if there is no clear minimum then it may not have the effect we may want.
-
Its not at all easy auditing/validating something that can be as subjective as a tick in the box.
Guidence documents that are available will direct and give best practice. Man regs ACOP gives definition of 'suitable and sufficient' and states that signifcant findings should include :- preventative and protective measures in place to control risks. In my opinion a plan or narrated description would suffice.
ACOP will also direct to HSE guide to H & S management (HSG 65). This requires policy,organising, planning, measuring performance and audit review performance to be included in risk assessments. A tick box FRA will not cover these points fully.
With no template or definitive RA style, referalls to these documents and a demonstration of compliance with these illustrate good practice.
Brigades will have to develop policies to enable officers to challenge/develop/assisst/audit/validate RA, quickly.
Consultants, employers etc will have to show compliance with WP regs to ensure they are fufilling there duties ensuring suitable and sufficient RA.
-
Plans do not mean that the standard of fire safety is any better, Its just another charter for consultants and doubles the cost of a FRA at the same time. The requirement is to record the significant findings. The fact that there is an extinguisher at position A on plan is not a significant finding. A health and safety risk assesssment does not show the location of all the first aid boxes on a plan. Do the HSE need plans showing the guards on machines in order to inspect premises and confirmn that the employer's risk assessment is OK.
-
Colin,
From the paragraph copied below from the management regs, do not the protective and preventive measures include the means of escape, means of giving warning etc?
Health and safety arrangements
5. - (1) Every employer shall make and give effect to such arrangements as are appropriate, having regard to the nature of his activities and the size of his undertaking, for the effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures.
(2) Where the employer employs five or more employees, he shall record the arrangements referred to in paragraph (1).
-
Of course they do. They mean, by definition, anything called for in part ll of the FP(W) Regs. That does not mean you need to write out a description of them if they are all satisfactory.
-
I believe that the Fire service college have developed a performance based Fire Risk Assessment method based on a Risk Assessment that originated in the USA, they term it the "Method" it takes account of not only life safety aspects but also property protection and business continuity. Has anyone adopted this method and if so, I would appreciate any feedback on the approach to carrying out this assessment and the actual format.
Many Thanks
-
Perhaps a further annex to 'Fire Safety: An Employer's Guide' providing a comprehensive list of suggested subjects to be covered/ questions to be answered within fire risk assessments would assist employers and others in producing more useful assessment forms?
-
The word comprehensive if the problem here. As soon as you include a list you need to be sure it includes pretty much everything.
The idea behind risk assessment is that you consider all the risks not just those on a given list.
As for the employers guide well the 11 plus guides that are proposed to support the RRO may have something more in them. We will have to wait and see.
-
1. The Method promoted by the Fire Service College has little practical application, and cannot be used by the vast majority of employers to satisfy the WFPL. Basically, they backed a loser, assuming that risk assessment was some new art that had to be based on some new, exciting methodology. Virtually every user of this BB can carry out a prefectly adequate FRA, using their existing skill and knowledge and a little thought as to how to document it. Even a reasonable IO from a certain well known metropolitan fire brigade could do it.
2. I would not hold my breath waiting for the ODPM to produce anything definitive in this respect. To do so would (oh dear dear) smack of prescription, and as we all know we can't have that or we would not be seen to be trendy.
3. There is nothing at all wrong with a list Wee B, provided there is flexibility to add to it and it does not become a tramline that people run on. ( I accept that a problem with check lists is that people do become blinkered to anything out side the check list.) BS 8800 actually recommends prompt lists in risk assessments.
4. To help people who have no methodology for carrying out and docmenting FRAs, but have the ability to carry out a FRA, BSI will soon publish a new Publicly Available Specification on this subject, to be published as PAS 999.[/b]
-
If our IT support keep losing my passwords, I will soon dislike them as much as a certain large met FB. I meant my name to go with the above message.
-
Like it or not, the people who should be doing these risk assessments may not have the time or experience to do justice to the matter or be so 'in the dark' that they decide to do nothing and hope for the best. Others will be blissfully unaware of the need to do anything of this nature. a 'standard' form with sensible questions to be answered, a list of possible risks to be considered, any other significant risks to be added, a requirement for a copy of the fire procedure to be added, names to be supplied, etc might just help.
-
Most of which will be in PAS 999 when it is published.
-
Thanks, Guest. As they say a lot in the USA now: Bring it on - but I hope it will be a bit more widely-publicised, user-friendly and less expensive than much of the BS literature!
-
With the exception of very few places of work and specifically those that require a fire certificate it should be perfectly acceptable to consider that local authority inspection can be a very satisfactory starting point for acceptance that current provision is wholey adequate for the purposes of the Workplace and Regulatory Reform. The Risk assessment process has just as much right to the statutory bar as anyone else. If Building Surveyors and Fire Safety Officers have not prescribed it under current Building regulations nor Fire Precaution Legislation then we have a right to rely on that for our risk assessment process. We should confine ourselves to the Audit and maintenance of the system and be very alert to any significant change of either Occupant Profile or Purpose or process changes. With all due respect risk assessment is not rocket science and realistically with the exception of a small percentage of workplaces the risk is absolutely minimal.... It is the lack of Fire Safety Management that will significantly increase the risk. This can be adequately checked with check lists and getting people to sign that they are responsible.
-
We have to be careful relying on the past approval of Fire Safety Officers Building control, or AI'S. I know that all of us are capable of missing things but it is usually an oversight. Some things are missed by, or wrongly prescribed, by enforcement professionals that are clearly based upon a lack of understanding of important fire safety principles.
-
One of the most important points in carrying out FRA's is the competence of the assessor.
Sadly, many people are carrying FRA's who although claiming to have been in Brigades for 30 or so years have never done a days Fire Safety in their lives. I only hope their insurance is good!
I agree with Colins earlier comments regarding Brigade people. With regard to my own Brigades policy, in future, we aim to only visit if FRA has been carried out although there will of course need to be exceptions to that. We will also be challenging the suitability of the assessment and the assessor where necessary.
-
I only hope their insurance is good!
Interesting point. In the case of someone acting as a consultant, obvioulsy they would need professional indemnity insurance. I wonder how much cover most have........If someone get's it horribly wrong, and there are multiple fatalities, would the consultant get sued? I suspect the employer would be easier to sue........
In the case of an employee doing the fire safety risk assessment - probably this is more common - then that individual is most unlikely to have, or need, insurance against the risk of being sued, it is the employer who would most likley get it.
Is anyone aware of any prosecutions where risk assessments were not undertaken by competant individuals (I am aware of the manchester school one, but I think it was the failure to provide a satisfactory escape route - this obvioulsy implies a lack of competance, but that wasn't specifically the point.)
-
This is very much an intresting discussion.
We all know that risk assessments differ from one fire proffessional to the next and from one lay persons to the next.
If we took 10 people from this discussion board and asked them to do 10 spererate fire risk assessments on one partiular area we'd get 10 different answers and all of them would probably be correct and satisfy the requirements of the FPWP regs.
These are the things I consider most important in a risk assessment:-
1) What fuel sources are there?
2) Whats sources of ignition are there?
3) Are there adequate means to provide warning?
4) Is there are adequate means of escape and are they kept clear?
5) Is there adequate signage
6) Are there less abled persons expected to use this area?
Thats my opinion. Have I covered all the basic fundemental important things?
I would say yes.
YOu can talk about passive fire protection and business continuity but the above IMHO are the real roots of an assessment and so far as anyone answers those questions when doing a risk assessment they are not going far wrong.
Note I did not include in the above "is there sufficient portable fire fighting appliances" Until the day I have been able to get all of our staff trained on fire extinguishers they will never figure in my assessment EVER!
I think extinguishers are counter productive.
All I primarliy want to do is ensure that:-
a) people can be warned of fire
b) people can evacuate quickly and safely
Frankly if the building collapses who cares, so long as everyone is out and safe then I have done my job!
"Ah but then" I hear you say "Most businesses never recover from fire what about your job fire can sometimes mean no job to go back to"
Well thanks to the governments new fire safety reform order I think its going to be easyto find another job - we fire bods are going to be in high demand for some while (I am of course kidding about no caring about not having a job)
Business continuity is important of course it is, but as I say the fundementals are as listed at the top of the page
-
I think extinguishers are counter productive.
They are a legal requirement, likewise is the need to train peope to use fire safety equipment.
What should people do when their sole escape route is blocked by fire, when someone's clothes are on fire, or when a waste paper basket catches light - let it grow to take out the whole building?
Essex Fire Brigade told me that 90% of fires are put out before they arrive on scene. Without fire extinguishers, I am sure we would have many more deaths.
Frankly if the building collapses who cares, so long as everyone is out and safe then I have done my job!
Your insurance company cares. They probably expect you to take good care of it, and they would probably not want to insure it if you are planning on being so reckless with it. I'm not suggeting people ought to be putting their safety at risk, but let's not stand back and let the building collapse because we don't feel inclined to save it.
Most organisations, schools, businesses, hospitals will have things that are irreplaceable.
so long as everyone is out and safe then I have done my job!
If you job is "health and safety" then yes, you may have. If your job is risk management, fire prevention or baed upon the sucess, reputation or continuance of the organisation then I think you would have not.
Fire Prevention = preventing fires, surely.
-
Some good points raised there.. in answer to those comments:-
1) How big a fire do you expect employees to tackle?
2) Does the fact a fire extinguishers is nearby encourage people to tackle fire especially those who havent been trained
3) Extinguishers should protect escape routes only but then escape routes should be kept sterile anyway
4)Even if you train staff to fight fire only the size of a waste bin what is on fire in the bin? Dorris the cleaners drops her empt aerosol can in there thats a very nice little explosion
5) what isthe bin made out of plastic? if so will giev off nasty fumes
So all in all I find extinguishers counter productive.
My comments regarding if i can ensure everyone gets out safely and quickly then Ive done my job still stands
You know yourself you can oput every precaution you like in place but you cant have your eyes everywhere. People prop open fire doors is that my fault?
I once again reiterate in a fire so long as people a warned can escape without being hindered and safely I HAVE done my job.Full stop
-
And finally ...may I apologise for the grammatical and spelling errors in my previous reply!
Like I say those are my opinions and Im happy to stand up in court and defend myself should anything go wrong
-
We all have our different opinions on the need for fire extinguishers, but fortunatly the law is quite clear. You need them.
In terms of what size of fire should be tackled, I would let the employees make their own judgement based upon their training.
If a person is on fire, and this does happen, a fire extinguishser or blanket will be needed. Likewise if their escape route is blocked.
Extinguishers are not just for the protection of escape routes, the Part 3 of BS 5306 makes this quite clear.
Sufficient numbers of employees should be trained in their use, as per the Workplace Regs.
That the bin may have plastics and is giving off fumes would not change my opinion on the need to put out the fire. I would expect this would be done fairly rapidly, but again the employee will make this decision based on their training and the circumstances.
Not all buildings have sterile escape routes, in fact many don't. Not all have compartmentation as per the Building Regs (for example any school that was built before Building Regs applied to schools). In some buildings a very small fire, left unchecked could grow and then spread before everyone gets out. Indeed this is what appears to have happened in the two recent prosecutions in Manchester.
I know there is a trend to tell people to ignore fire extinguishers, but they are there for a purpose, they have been successfully used for many years to put out fires. As Essex Fire Brigades stats. suggest, 90% of fires are put out before the brigade get there, this is many thousands of fires, I am not aware of statistics that suggest there are high numbers of injuries or deaths from people who try to put fires out.
We live in a soceity where employers are trying their best to eliminate all forms of risks, but by stopping people putting out fires, I think we are creating bigger risks.
Are you aparent assumptions that there is anacceptanble risk of injury to people who put out fires based on any evidence or statistics?
As for attending court, if you are willing to ignore the requirements of the workplace regs, that may just be what you have to do.
-
Sorry for the shoddy typing.
Are you aparent assumptions that there is anacceptanble risk of injury to people who put out fires based on any evidence or statistics?
Should have read:
Are you aparent assumptions that there is an unacceptable risk of injury to people who put out fires based on any evidence or statistics?
-
All this points to the difficulty of recognizing a competent fire risk assessor and a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. I agree about the 10 different opinions. We run a fire risk assessment course that is attended promarily by experienced fire officers and building control officers. We have now run the course 17 times. On every course, we have given people a small example of a rural police station ( a real case history ) and ask whether the building needs em lighting and/or a fire alarm system. ON NOT ONE COURSE, have the delegates ever been in universal agreement as to the right answer. So, by definition, there IS no right answer. Given that, how is an employer supposed to come up with a solution himself? Returning to the issue of competence, the IFE Register of Fire Risk Assessors is some yardstick, particularly as entry to the register is far from a token gesture-a significant proportion of those who apply are unsuccessful, purely because the samples of their risk assessments are deemd to be inadequate.
-
I certainly cant argue with what Chris Houston has said at all.And Im certainly not saying he is wrong.
We all have as Colin Todd says different opinions and our interpretation of risk can be significantly different.
I also think the people we learn from all have different ways of teaching us , they all have different opinions which rub off on us.
Its like the argument about extiguishers which I dont want to really labour here but I have been to so many different training sessions and conferences where the speaker or lecturers (all of which are well respected and competent fire engineers) have sent out differing signals about the use of fire extinguishers.
Without clear bench marks and totaly prescriptive law we need to make our own judgements and as I said before 10 different people will do 10 different risk assessments - so which one is right?
Are they all wrong?
Are they all right?
And how does that all play out if you are sat in front of a judge?
Intresting dont you think?
-
What law says that you need fire extinguishers? British Standards certainly have recommendations, but they are not law.
Was there not a case a year or two ago where the owners of a big wrinkly tin 'shed' (probably in Northamptonshire) decided they didn't want them; the local Brigade took them to court and lost?
-
The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 states
"Fire-fighting and fire detection
4. - (1) Where necessary (whether due to the features of a workplace, the activity carried on there, any hazard present there or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of employees in case of fire -
(a) a workplace shall, to the extent that is appropriate, be equipped with appropriate fire-fighting equipment and with fire detectors and alarms; and
(b) any non-automatic fire-fighting equipment so provided shall be easily accessible, simple to use and indicated by signs[19],
and for the purposes of sub-paragraph (a) what is appropriate is to be determined by the dimensions and use of the building housing the workplace, the equipment it contains, the physical and chemical properties of the substances likely to be present and the maximum number of people that may be present at any one time.
(2) An employer shall, where necessary in order to safeguard the safety of his employees in case of fire -
(a) take measures for fire-fighting in the workplace, adapted to the nature of the activities carried on there and the size of his undertaking and of the workplace concerned and taking into account persons other than his employees who may be present;
(b) nominate employees to implement those measures and ensure that the number of such employees, their training and the equipment available to them are adequate, taking into account the size of, and the specific hazards involved in, the workplace concerned; and
(c) arrange any necessary contacts with external emergency services, particularly as regards rescue work and fire-fighting."
I imagine it would be hard to argue - unless it was a large empty shed - that there is no need to supply fire fighting equipment to a premises to cover this clause.
From memory, a similar clause appears in the RRO due for incorporation into legislation next year.
I hope this answers your question.
Regards
James
-
Risk assessments (as I understand them) involve establishing effective control measures. In the case of FRAs, I take this to include controls against actual fire and fire spread as well as against the incidence of fire and safe evacuation. This must, surely, include extinguishment as well as prevention, detection, etc. So my check-list will include existence of sufficient FEs of the correct type and locations and inspected within the past 14 months. In fact, attention to FEs can be indicative of management attention to other aspects of fire safety. I have come across this 'firefighter' approach to fire safety on a number of occasions. 'You just make sure everyone can get out and leave the rest to us' seems fine until they wave goodbye and your left with unusable buildings and employees with no job or pupils with no school.
-
Slightly disagree with Ken's comment about the firefighters approach.
Fire Service is obliged to say first and foremost life but also property so they will bnever just walk away - they will always try to save buildings.
I think reading what people have said here as a fire proffesional so long as people can aescape quickly and safely yes we have done our job. W eare not firefighters leave the flames to them thats what they are paid and trained to do.
-
Please note that I have not criticised what firefighters do when they attend fires but pointed out the potential consequences of not considering the value of fire extinguishers and following advice to ignore their use by trained persons. I wonder what the premises and staff of the estimated 8 or 9 out of 10 fires not dealt with by fire brigades would look like now if they had simply followed this advice?
-
The new RRO will leave a small caveat in place to deal with the empty premises and other limited situations but the guidance to accompany the Order will make clear that the provision of fire fighting equipment is an integral part of reducing the risk. It will be very difficult, (but I'm sure our learned friends will try), to argue that extinguishers are unnecessary. Whether you need to comply fully with BS though is open to the findings of your fire risk assessment.
-
It will be a judge if not judge and 12 just persons that will determine adequate provision,adequate consideration,adequate and competent risk assessment. All evidence (which is essential) to the process will be examined whether tick check list,log book, consultants reports and nominated persons records. What is required is for the legislation to be enforced.prosecutions brought under this legislation and judgements made then we will all have clarity.
-
C S Todd and Associates have sponsoed a PAS (Publicly Available Specification) through BSI and this should be available later on this year. I have seen the draft and was most impressed. More information may be available by contacting Colin Todd.
-
Jim,
While you are right about the legal process, it is difficult to see how one legal judgement can influence another situation. Each RA is, as has been stated, a subjective assessment of all the relevant circumstances. By altering any one of those circumstances you can render the judgement void. Case law will be of limited use in setting acceptable standards and the effort and expense of bringing these cases, especially against large, (and rich) organisations. A recent case left the enforcing authority facing a potential costs liability of £30,000. In this case they won but there is a limit to the number of cases they can bring. The best any case can do is give some general guidance (not Appeal court 'case law') about a certain set of circumstances.
-
Now there is one good thing that is in the RRO. That is that there is a process where appeals are submitted to the Secretary of State. This means that many issues (not points of law mind you) on what is or isnt reasonable would be dealt with by ODPM and their decisions would be readily available. The cost of making such an appeal would be peanuts compared to any sort of legal action.
This approach has been working reasonably well for the building regs for some time. Whilst each case is judged on its merits you can get a steer from each decision as to what is considered necessary.
-
I think the Fire Service College promoted 'The Method' as a pseudo quantitaive methodology of risk assessment whereas the fire safety risk assessments that we are dealing with in the Workplace regs, the RRO and the Fire (Scotland) Bill (by the way who was it or why is it that given that we are all a part of the UK and also Europe that Scotland have reverted to its own legislation? another retrograde step, divisive no doubt by those north of the border) is a more qualitative approach which takes into account the 'feel' for a premises that you get if you are an experienced and competent fire safety person. Also, we may be the experts in fire safety and know (or think we know)what we are doing but remember that the methodology that is expoused by this government embraces the notion that anyone who is nominated as the responsible person should be able to carry out a fire safety risk assessment and stick to some fairly simple rules. Anything like 'the Method' if it was officially approved, would hhave to be placed in the public domain and anything that smacks of over complexity would not wash well in the public domain otherwise those experts in this field would grab the market and cost the business community some money for their safety.
Cheers from a cynic!!
BOB DOCHERTY
-
The reason Scotland couldn't have the RRO is that after some months of assuming that they would/could some clever wag in the civil service pointed out that the Regulatory Reform Act could not apply north of the border. That and something to do with 'delegated powers'. Forgive me, I am an Englishman and I may not have got that spot on! However, amongst much embasrrassment it was realised quite late in the day that the Order could only apply to England and Wales. (which is why there is all that funny writing in the back).
Suffice to say that all the senior fire safety officers in the fire service are grabbing their lump sums as quickly as possible and setting up as consultants. Can't think why?
-
Hi James, thanks for that explanation of why Scotland is going its own way. I didnt realise that! However as a scotsman who is now an Englishman ( I did work in Scotland for over 13 years so figure that one out!) I am not too sure that that is correct otherwise why didn't they just copy out the RRO as a seperate Bill, never underestimate the stregth of a Scottish Parliament and its ambitions, and by the way good luck to to them
Cheers
BOB
-
Robert, The reply to your query is correct. The Reg Ref Act only applies in E&W. And who the hell would want to copy out the crap produced by the ODPM in the form of the Order anyway! It is just as easy in the case of Scotland to produce primary legislation. Wee B, you forgot to mention one thing in the attention you drew to the appeals process. You can only use it if you agree that there is a non compliance with legislative requirements and it is simply a matter of a dispute as to how to fix it. It is clear from all the comments in the boards on FRAs (and from common experience) that it is more likely that someone says in an FRa that all is well and the fire authority disagree. Under these circumstances, you cannot use tha non-Court route, as you have not agreed that there is any breach in legislation. So, while I acknowledge the sentiment that, at most, there is only one good thing in the Order, in reality it is only half a good thing!
-
Fair comment. I was very disapointed to see the wording in relation to appeals.
You could probably agree that a failure existed but propose a very minor solution to it. Its pants but may be the only way round it.
-
Hi Colin Crap!!! from the ODPM? that is heresy, obviously you havent read the Scotland (Fire) Bill, more crap than you can throw a stone at, indeed its as parsimonious as the Scottish Parliament building!!!!!! when will Scotland ever learn theat they are part (only a small part at that) of the UK and Gt Britain and the EU. When they learn that lesson then maybe we will have a bit of common sense
Cheers
BOB
-
Robert, I have read the draft Bill. I took it on hols with me and read it in the Bahamas sunshine. It bored the hell out of me, but I have to say I liked it more than what I repeat for avoidance of doubt is the crap produced by the Old Dozey Post Menopausal people. For a start, those drafting the Bill had the courage and intellect not merely to copy out the Eurospeak of the EU Directives, unlike their English colleagues. You may also note the subtle difference in the wording relating to determination of disputes by the Minister. It is permissible to seek determination if the enforcing authority consider there to be a breach of duty. In the English version you have to put your hands up to a breach first of all, as agreed by my right honourable friend the Wee B. (Am I reading more into this than there is?) With regard to Scotland, Robert, we gave you the telephone, penicillin, the steam engine and a broader superior education system. Now, you have the Bill. What more do you want? What's parsimonious about it anyway? Why would you throw a stone at crap? And how can you say the Parliament building is parsimonious given the cost of it?
-
Hi Colin Crap!!! from the ODPM? that is heresy, obviously you havent read the Scotland (Fire) Bill, more crap than you can throw a stone at, indeed its as parsimonious as the Scottish Parliament building!!!!!! when will Scotland ever learn theat they are part (only a small part at that) of the UK and Gt Britain and the EU. When they learn that lesson then maybe we will have a bit of common sense
Cheers
BOB
Bob,
FireNet exists to discuss fire related issues. Can I suggest that if you feel the need to debate such issues as the Scottish people or our Parliament, you start up a separate thread in the Dinosaur forum? Should you wish to do this, please bring an atlas (Re: Scotland being a small part of the UK) and a dictionary (Re: use of parsimonious.) ;)
Sincerely,
Chris Houston.
-
Hi Colin Crap!!! from the ODPM? that is heresy, obviously you havent read the Scotland (Fire) Bill, more crap than you can throw a stone at, indeed its as parsimonious as the Scottish Parliament building!!!!!! when will Scotland ever learn theat they are part (only a small part at that) of the UK and Gt Britain and the EU. When they learn that lesson then maybe we will have a bit of common sense
Cheers
BOB
Bob,
FireNet exists to discuss fire related issues. Can I suggest that if you feel the need to debate such issues as the Scottish people or our Parliament, you start up a separate thread in the Dinosaur forum? Should you wish to do this, please bring an atlas (Re: Scotland being a small part of the UK) and a dictionary (Re: use of parsimonious.) ;)
Sincerely,
Chris Houston.
-
Hi Chris sorry about that I will stick to the topics in future, however, my use of the word parsimonious was correct given that I was using it in a jokey,nay, ironic way, but Colin and yourself seemed to have missed the irony!! my reference to Scotland was demographically based rather than geographic. Anyway, thanks for re-focussing me and thanks to Colin et al for the explananation re the two pieces of legislation, I now know why
Cheers
BOB
-
OK - I forgive you, :P thousands wouldn't :lol:
PS On a serious note, do use the Dinosaur forum, it's not very well used at the moment............
-
Robert, The reply to your query is correct. The Reg Ref Act only applies in E&W. And who the hell would want to copy out the crap produced by the ODPM in the form of the Order anyway! It is just as easy in the case of Scotland to produce primary legislation. Wee B, you forgot to mention one thing in the attention you drew to the appeals process. You can only use it if you agree that there is a non compliance with legislative requirements and it is simply a matter of a dispute as to how to fix it. It is clear from all the comments in the boards on FRAs (and from common experience) that it is more likely that someone says in an FRa that all is well and the fire authority disagree. Under these circumstances, you cannot use tha non-Court route, as you have not agreed that there is any breach in legislation. So, while I acknowledge the sentiment that, at most, there is only one good thing in the Order, in reality it is only half a good thing!
So does anybody know (or can anyone suggest) what will happen in Scotland, if anything? Will similar legislation probably be passed?
-
The approach in Scotland is slightly different...as has been said, most of what they are doing - including fire safety legislation - is part of the Fire (Scotland) Bill. See:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/06/5738
The (draft) Fire (Scotland) Bill already contains things which the Fire Safety Order for E&W proposes. However, if the Bill (becoming an Act) does not cover all that is needed for fire safety, secondary legislation could be passed under powers in the (proposed) Act, which may resemble parts of the Fire Safety Order for E&W.