FireNet Community
THE REGULATORY REFORM (FIRE SAFETY) ORDER 2005 => Q & A => Topic started by: Gary Howe on December 17, 2004, 12:41:26 PM
-
Is the RRO still scheduled for implementation in October 2005??
Regards
Gary.
-
Wouldnt hold your breath.
-
November 2005 at the earliest...way things are going early 2006 is looking increasingly likely.
RRO was meant to be a simple way of implementing de-regulatory policy. HA HA HA HA HA HA......
-
I fear the RRO is rapidly loosing credibility. If its introduction is really to be further delayed, its introduction is likely to be about as successful as that of the FP (workplace) Regs!
-
RRO (FSRO) is due in November....which year I don't know.
Seriously Gary the RRo is becoming a big joke because the Government keep putting back the date it supposedly comes into force.
Im sure when things get nearer the time Firenet members wil beign posting appropriate topics on this subject.
-
After speaking to BRE,guidence documents on course for, wait for it..... October 2006. After a ministerial lunch one requested that it would be a nonsense to release order without guides. Response,after feet shuffling, '' of course the order will be released at the same time as guides.'' So October 2006 looks good, mmmmmm. To brigades not carrying out there statutory rquirementsto the 71 act, see you in court maybe??? To all, dont hold your breath. Why the delay to the guides? What is risk assessment? Prescription versus Risk appropriate? 13 guides on different occupancies and an enforcers guide, sounds like fire service could give good input on these. Ha ha.
-
As I understand it, a team of fire fighters were asked to draft the first guide over a year ago. Its not finished yet!
-
The plug was pulled on that team in June 2004 because they weren't delivering fast enough! Contract was then given to consultants (BRE, I believe) who have been waiting for Fire Policy Division to gather stakeholder acceptance of revisions to the initial guide. (Code for, 'would the CBI accept it'?) Still not got to that stage. On version 9 or 10 or god knows what now. Still...best to get it right. :-)
-
I still can't see the need for so many guides. Surely the if the emphasis is to be on risk it is imaterial what label we apply to the building use. Surely a fire in an office poses a risk in the same way as a fire in a football stadium. The magnituide of risks may be different, but do we really need separate guides for each type of premises?
Isn't this just trying to replicate the previous rainbow of coloured guidance books?
Perhaps if the powers that be focussed on the objective rather than meeting a new challenge with a traditional prescriptive approach we wouldn't need all the proposed guidance documents and could deliver tham a damned sight quicker!
I'm not sure I'm enlightened or mis-guided, but I am sure that the responses will confirm either way!
-
The problem is simple - nobody really agrees on what risk assessment means in real terms.
We could set a maximum acceptable probability of death by fire which could then be applied to all buildings. But who wants to stand up and say what the acceptable risk is? And how many people are actually capable of calculating it?
Given that this is a non starter what you have to do is set some sort of benchmark guidance from which people can take the lead. Hence lots of different guides.
The idea is that a reasonably sensible person can read the guide and get it about right without the need for specialist help.
-
I agree that no one will ever have the balls to tell it like it is that in the real world away from the glossy politics and spin people will and do get injured or even killed, but I still can't see the need for guidane documents based upon the labels that we attach to different premises.
Surely, any guidance produced should concentrate on the assessment of risk and provide information in respect of how to make a valid assessment and take appropriate steps to mitigate.
The current tack seems to be to produce a guide for offices and shops for instance with some preconceived ideas as to the risks to which occupants of those premises will be exposed. Surely this begins to undermine the process of risk assessment and results in a bastardisation of the intention that the 'Responsible Person' should manage risk.
Still confused as to whether I'm dazzling with brilliance or baffling with bulls**t!
-
I think the latter my friend. You must be in the Fire & Rescue services!
-
If the employer is to sort out fire precautions for himself, he will need definitve guidance, it's as simple as that. No big deal, except, it would seem, what to tell the employer, which so fas has taken about 2 years in the case of what to tell somebody running a shop, so God knows how long it will take to write guides for all premises.
-
My pint entirely. If we weren't trying to write guides for all premises, but instead was writing guidance about risk, surely the principles would apply universally.
The only additional guidance required would then be to provide examples of situations and the appropriate assessment of their risk, together with detailed expalanation of how the assessment had been derived and what factors are considered as significantly influencing the outcome.
I'm still struggling with understanding why the process seems to ignore that fact that we are stiving for an arena in which fire risks are adequately managed, but we're hell bent on writing guidance based upon building use and preconcieved ideas of the risks therein.
Surely we're in danger of not providing the appropriate tools to the "Responsible Person" to allow them to take full responsibility for managing their risk!
I'm not in the fire service so perhaps that's my weakness..................I've not been programmed into the mindset that offices and shops have one type risk, whilst facories, sports stadia, hotels and hospitals have others!
I'm still in the perhaps niaive belief that the incidence of uncontrolled fire constitutes a hazard. The environment in which the fire may occur will determine the likelihood that the hazard may occur, and the severity of the outcome once the hazard has occurred, it turn giving the magnitude of risk.
Surely, if guidance is being produced on the basis of the environment in which a fire may occur, some assessment of the likelihood and potential severity and hence risk MUST be preconceived.
How is it possible to then expect the "Responsible Person" to take responsibility for the preconceptions of the guidance authors?
Either I'm missing something BIG TIME and should perhaps consider growing potatos in Norfolk as a career, the emperor has aquired a fantastic new set of clothes and I'm just not on message or my brilliance is so blinding that the powers that be will soon be declaring a nuclear incident in my immediate vicinity!!!???!!!
-
Many moons ago, the need for guidance documents was being considered by the FSAB. (Remember them...doing rather well until the ODPM in a fit of pique decided to disband it. Pamela Castle is gamely tring to put the pieces of Humpty Dumpty back together again).
One suggestion was that a guide to fire risk assesment should be a standalone guide and that SLIM (20/30 pages?) supplements should be produced to give additional guidance, where required, to the specific risks and working practises found in factories, care homes, etc.
Do not know why this eminently sensible idea foundered but point your microscope at the ODPM.
As an aside...the Licensing Act, steered by the DCMS is proving similarily flawed. Great ideas which struggle when you get to detail.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
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, 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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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,
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.
-
A prescriptive guide is better than nothing for these people.
-
doctor doctor - i think theirs something wrong with my health
- well, thats not good enough, you have to tell me whats wrong
- but i dont know, i just want to be healthy, cant you offer me some guidance even on how to stay healthy
- no, not nowadays m'lad. it would be far to prescriptive to actually tell you what may be wrong, and then tell you ways on how to make yourself better, even to suggest contacting a specialist who deals in nothing other than your type of issues would just not do!
so what do i do then
- just wait until youre poorly, until something happens, then i can tell you what you should have done to prevent it, oh and when you are poorly, because the things are rundown you will need to pay large sums of money into the local surgery because it will be suffering from lack of funding and huge fines will help it to be able to continue raising money in this way
but cant you just give me something to read, sort of how to make yourself better in a day type book
- well we could but if we did we wouldnt be able to raise finances of you to keep us going would we - next please
id laugh it wasnt so stupid
dave bev
-
I think I've been misunderstood.......or is it that I'm misunderstanding?
I've not at any point said that we shouldn't provide guidance.
The analogy with the medical profession is a useful one. I'm not saying that we shouldn't provide guidance to someone that believes they may have an illness, what I'm saying is that we should provide guidance on how to determine if they're unwell and how to diagnose their condition.
Before I'm deafened by the masses claiming that I'm advocating every perosn in the country having to become a risk expert, I'm merely suggesting that we should provide guidance such that employers etc. can make an informed descision rather than "It says in the book so I must comply"!
It's interesting that when refering to the RRO much distain has been leveled at thoe in their ivory towers making the descisions regarding the framework of fire safety, but it is the same people in those same ivory towers that would be producing any prescriptive guidance telling employers etc. what they must do to comply with legislation!
Surely if we're not comfortable with the ivory tower dwellers telling us to assess risk, we can't be comfortable with them telling us how many fire doors we should have.
Also, we can't be happy with these same people telling us what risks we should expect in a building which has been given some arbitary label by those in the ivory tower.
Surely, if we're going to improve things we need to provide employers etc. with the tools to allow them to do the job, not do the job for them!
-
dear bemused of bemusington,
i wasnt skitting at you - i also believe that there should be some form of guidance, in fact id say it was an absolute requirement
i also said preiviously that im glad im not the one having to work out what should or shouldnt be contained within it, as for the ivory towerers - i actualy believe there are some great and good up there amongst them, trying to make sense of it all - again im glad im not there - besides my hair aint long enough to play rapunzel!
daddy or chips ? hmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnn
-
Chips everytime!!!!! Preferable not from a chip pan, but some of the oven variety!
-
hmmmmmmmnnnnnn
i see you fell into the trap that keeps being set!
why didnt you argue for both, why does it just have to be one way with no compromise, we need a mix/range of solutions/options in my view
and those who only offer the one way need to be encouraged to look at solutions ( i expect some very strong comments after that statement, but i dont set policies and often suggest some are wrong - so try to keep it clean!)
dave bev
-
Sneaky!!! However, Daddy always nicks all the chips!
I don't believe it's possible to have both, i.e. they are mutually exclusive.
As I've mentioned previously, my understanding of the guidance that is being proposed is that it deals with the issue of fire safety and risk assessment on the basis of different premises. Hence a need for so many guidance documents and why I believe it's taking so long to produce them. (This is where I came in.)
If guidance relating to fire risk assessment in a shop is produced which is defferent to the guidance relatimng to risk assessment in a factory, then surely someone must have pre-empted the risks likely to be present in each type of premise.
If this is the case, then how can we expect the "Responsible Person" to take responsibility for the risk assessment and associated risk management when part of the risk assessement has effectively been completed by a person or persons that haven't even seen the premises for which the "Responsible Person" is responsible?
I'm not saying that one size fits all, in my experience one size usually fits no one 'cos it invariably in cludes all manner of compromise.
I'm suggesting that risk assessment guidance should be generic and NOT building specific. I have no problem with providing guidance on measures that may be appropriate to mitigate the risks identified by the risk assessment, as long as the factors influencing such measures and their application are fully described.
Perhaps Daddy won't always nick all of the chips!!
-
sorry about the sneaky bit!
good points, well made!
im not sure the guidance can be building specific due to diversity of buildings - if you mean process/industry specific then i understand this is what the guidance is being developed for.
guidance should be generic, but perhaps there are several 'givens' that could be applied to many premises/buildings, therefore providing guidance AND advice?
actually this daddy didnt nick all the cjhips although some say he must have ate all the pies!
dave bev
-
Do for release in April 2006
-
which 2006?