FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Studius on December 28, 2010, 02:50:59 PM
-
Over recent years there has been an increase in non uniformed / non operational FS officers throughout the UK. Looking back the Bickerdyke Allen 1990 review suggested that enforcement be opened up to the private sector. Is this a step too far or similar to what is happening to forensic science?
-
Bickerdyke Allen brought about changes to the way the Fire Safety elements of the Building Regulations were enforced. Also lets not forget that the insurance companies already play an important role in enforcement.
Similarly whenever there is a case to be determined by technical evidence then expert witnesses will be used to advise the enforcers- either the fire authorities during investigations or the Courts once a case is brought. These expert witnesses are invariably from the private sector.
Enforcement is a very wide term. I wonder from which angle you are interested in the Private Sector's involvement?
Auditing and verifying standards through inspections?
Requirements, improvements and prohibitions?
Encouraging good standards through education publicity and training?
Investigation and Prosecution?
-
Thanks Kurnal,
My involvement is through FRS, and "enforcement" is such a wide descriptor, but your list does encompass a FRA's duty, so it would be difficult to disect, as it is the whole that must be attended to.
The private setor is now well established with consultancy in this field, but as many FRA's increase the numbers of non uniformed FSO's and finances get tighter. Would there be sufficent financial gain for the private sector?
If a FRA takes on a prosecution it will never recover the full cost of its action and I cannot see how moving this "service" into the commercial environment would make it more effective.
Thanks for the reminder about insurance companies, they are sometimes overlooked.
-
Some Brigades have looked at outsourcing their fire safety enforcement role to other providers such as the FPA. I am not aware of how detailed the discussions were but it is feasible that it could occur in the future. The likes of compan's such as AssetCo would be willing no doubt to look quite closely at this type of work by picking up on retired or retiring fire safety officers on contracts and utilising their knowledge of enforcement within an FRS structure.
-
The private sector is now well established with consultancy in this field, but as many FRA's increase the numbers of non uniformed FSO's and finances get tighter. Would there be sufficient financial gain for the private sector?
If the Fire Authority was to completely separate their responsibilities, the operational role and the fire safety role, then they should be able to compete with the private sector, because they do not have the profit motive. With the increased civilianisation of the FS departments then they are heading in that direction but to truly compete they will have to go the whole hog.
-
I've just flicked through the Fire Futures, National Interests workstream report and it could be nearer than most of us think! But where would the next generation come from with most retired FSO's moving into either the private sector or non uniformed posts.
However the real focus is; could private enforcement be cost effective and impartial?
-
three disjointed points-
1- could private enforcement be cost effective and impartial?
Private garages and MOTs spring to mind. Some problems but generally sound, fixed price set by the Government? But working to prescriptive standards. Special modifications require an engineers report.Hmm.
2- But this type of approach would be such a leap from the general approach to H&S enforcement by the HSE and local Authorities. Why not follow that pattern instead? Take fire safety off the Fire Brigades and give it to the HSE?
3- Whatever they do, it takes a long time for such significant changes to settle in and for problems to arise. At first the new arrangements will be staffed by old timers with traditional values but as they retire out of the system new blood without the traditional values, training or experience they start to push the boundaries too far. I think this is where we are now with Approved Inspectors and Fire Engineers. There may be trouble ahead.
-
Cue music ;D
Some good points, well made
In regard to point two Prof, I don't think the current standing of the HSE with the general public and press in particular would help. Everybody respects the FRS and trusts them but following the HSE general approach should work, just keep that bit quiet ::)
davo
-
No Davo I dont support it myself. Just that if privatisation is being discussed there are other options. My preferred option would be to leave it as it is but improve career opportunities within the Fire Safety Departments to allow continuity and stop moving people round as soon as they become half competent.
-
Kurnal you will never achieve your aims if it remains as it is and tinker around the edges. It would have to be a completely separate department answerable to the chief officer or the fire authority.
The HSE would be the last authority I would consider because of their completely reactive approach. For FS to work properly you need a proactive and reactive approach even if its only limited, like it is now, by only inspecting high risk premises and inspecting premises brought to their attention.
-
Tom
Over the last five years the HSE has lost a lot of staff, with 20% more to come.
The number of planned inspections is well down also.
As the TUC says, you want proactive then employ the staff ;D
davo
-
All the more reason why it could go to the private sector. Proactivity means staffing costs, reactivity means than you don't have the staff and the staff cos that are incurred can be picked up by others.
-
How would it be funded Jokar? There would be little gained by fire authorities contracting out their fire enforcement duties as most are cut to the bone and most officers are currently multi tasking. If they did contract out services to the private sector they would need to retain some staff to manage the arrangements.
So that leaves the other option which would be to levy a charge on Responsible Persons for the cost in audits and enforcement. An extra burden on business and public services alike - a non starter at this time in my opinion.
-
Just to add my thoughts about the direction technical fire safety is heading.
In the eight years I have been serving in fire safety I have seen a reduction of around 50% of officers carrying out technical fire safety in my brigade. As each person retires they are either not replaced or replaced with officers that only do a 50% commitment. I personally work in a team of one. A year ago I spent 100% of my time on fire safety I am now being asked at least one day a week to provide operational cover. by the time have dealt with building regulation consultations, post fire inspections and complaints I have no time left to carry out audits. None ops training has been cut so anybody who does enter fire safety has little or no training. I have heard principle officers asking recently why the service pays Grey Book conditions when they could pay Green Book conditions for its enforcement officers.
Now I really do like the job I do - I see my role as protecting the public and firefighters alike. However, I have seen a general lowering of standards since the introduction of the RRO I would therefore argue that now is the time more, better trained officers who can assist businesses in complying and a deal with the people who are sticking two fingers up to the enforcers. My choice is to keep it in the public sector for one reason only - impartiality.
-
For those who have not seen the Fire Futures reports, they can be downloaded here:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/fire/firerescueservice/firefutures/
-
...........And what will happen if the Forensic Science service closes and Private companies take up all investigations. Private investigators; even the very best ( and I have worked with the best) have their clients to serve. ......can they be impartial?
:-\
-
It is not really about funding it, it is about saving money. If a company chooses to outsource some of its workload to another compnay there is only normally one reason for that and that is a financial saving. If you farm out on a contract basis some of the workload, in this case fire safety enforcement to another company, they pick up the staffing costs for that activity. Control would remain with the FRS through on a contract basis an staff would be required to run that part of the business but not necesaarily uniformed staff. The cost savings if any are there for smaller FRS will be in not paying for a whole time enforcement team.
-
If Dinnertime Dave's comments are typical of the smaller brigade then it would appear that they arent paying for a wholetime enforcement team in any case.
I would take some convincing that there is money to be saved by contracting out services. Unless the level of service provision is to take a nose dive. And its already too low in many areas.
Many brigades are already building up problems for the future by civilianising their enforcement teams solely through the re-employment of former uniformed officers. There needs to be a proper career structure to equip new people and train them to carry out the role. The whole Industry - private and public sectors are based on a group of old timers who have retired early with a fire service pension. Very few are putting any resources into the training and development of young blood. There are a very few exceptions- for example the ABBE seem to be working in the right direction in producing NVQs for fire risk assessors.
The private sector and fire brigades will both suffer from a the resulting lack of skilled employees. Fire Safety is an important skill for Fire Brigades to retain and nurture for all sorts of reasons. .
-
Even the US, land of commerce and private enterprise, retains fire code enforcement firmly in the public sector with it's fire marshals at city and state level.
To privatise enforcement it would be difficult (but not impossible) without de-criminalising it (like with parking enforcement) which is not a good idea.
Also how could it pay - Civilian FSO wages are pitiful already in some brigades, if you lowered it to allow a profit in the private sector you will pay peanuts, thus expecting monkeys. Fire certification type fees would have to return and the enforcement firm allowed to retain a percentage of fines. An introduction of a fixed penalty system to reduce the legal process (& costs) would surely follow.
To privatise and not go down that path you will just end up doing what happens with the other privatisation of former state functions - it costs more, just from a different Govt. departments budget.
-
Privatising enforcement isn't really viable.
In building regs you do have AI's but even then the enforcement role stays with the Local Authority. Given that the FSO deosn't include any kind of approval process then you cant privatise it.
The bit you can privatise is the giving of advice - in case you havent noticed, that's already happened.
What we do need is to ensure that competent commercial advice is available. Thats where some sort of registration comes in. Can the industry deliver?
-
The first part of the fire safety ‘lifecycle’ for any premises is when it is being constructed or altered; in respect of fire safety this work is controlled under the relevant Building Regulations, which can already be enforced by the private sector (Approved Inspectors). My initial thoughts were therefore “why should the enforcement of the legislation that deals with the occupied premises be any different”?
I think it is different, though, because the nature of the legislation is that it relies upon the enforcers operating targeted, risk-based inspection of all ‘at risk’ premises. I would suggest that there could only ever be a single entity within any geographical area that could be accountable for developing & maintaining such an inspection regime (discounting for the moment ‘special’ premises such as nuclear power stations etc). It would be hard to see how this could be anyone else than the relevant fire authority (FA).
Nothing to stop the FA from employing civvies to do this work, or even to stop them outsourcing it to a private company, but they would need to retain the ultimate accountability for whether it’s done right or not. In the case of outsourcing if they draw up the contracts right, procure competently & enforce the contracts rigidly, I can’t see why (in concept) this wouldn’t work. The private companies might also be able to do it cheaper not because private sector employees are necessarily paid less, but the private sector’s overheads (pensions etc) are often much cheaper, which means they might be able to pay their staff more & still turn a profit.
Note that I said "if they draw up the contracts right, procure competently & enforce the contracts rigidly, I can’t see why (in concept) this wouldn’t work..." I would observe that the ability of the public sector to achieve all three of these might not be entirely reliable!
-
The first part of the fire safety ‘lifecycle’ for any premises is when it is being constructed or altered; in respect of fire safety this work is controlled under the relevant Building Regulations, which can already be enforced by the private sector (Approved Inspectors). My initial thoughts were therefore “why should the enforcement of the legislation that deals with the occupied premises be any different”?
Forgive me but my understanding is that AI`s administer building regulations - only the local authority enforce. If I am totally honest I find that AI on the whole are quite good having to prove competence regularly. My experience some local authority BCO`s rely on making no comments and and using a free consultation from the fire authority.
However, I have heard stories of an AI asking a builder to send a photo of the footings to save a journey, when the builder pointed out that he could send a photo of any footings the AI said "that would be up to you".
Although before I get totally slaughtered for my comments there are good and bad in all industries, we only have to look at some of the stories told on here of the fire safety officers who ask for inappropriate items.
-
Theoretically:
I will start up a body called the FSE. (Fire Safety Executive of course)
I will nick a load of inspectors, competent assessors etc from around the country. (Just enough for a reactive inspection regime, and consultations)
Gov't should then change the subordinate provison on the RRFSO, changing the enforcing authority to my newly formed FSE.
The government can take money away from all FRS' that they would have earmarked for fire safety enforcement and give 50% of it to me and give the rest back to the taxpayer.
I will give my inspectors a wage, and ensure they are trained properly.
I will give myself a nice wage for all my trouble.
I bet I would still have some change left to spend on Colin Todds book after saving the taxpayer all that money.
Any issues there?
-
Civvy
You should buy all of your Inspectors a copy, I'm told there are a few left in the warehouse ::)
(Soz CT, couldn't resist)
davo
-
Civvy
You should buy all of your Inspectors a copy, I'm told there are a few left in the warehouse ::)
:-X
-
Good idea, I might be looking for a job soon!
-
wee b
me too, got my 'at risk' notice just before Xmas, nice eh >:(
davo
-
Civvy
You should buy all of your Inspectors a copy, I'm told there are a few left in the warehouse ::)
:-X
Sorry i did try to obtain a copy of a CT book (it was on a university reading list) and it was out of print. :o
-
The rising fire losses would suggest at the moment UK FRS's are not getting it right, Ok the number a fatalities in domestics has steadily declined. But once again the "Dark Art" seems to be within someones sights. FP does work , but as most of us realise you can never prove that the measures requested by an fso saved life or two.
The idea I thought was to prevent, so to adopt a HSE type of approach of kicking people when they are down seems to fly in the face of Fire Rescue ethos. Obviously there are the beligerant types when enforcement is necessary but surely (not Shirley) this should ideally be carried out before .
Insurers are pretty much a sleeping partner in this enforcement role (full circle coming), but they can help FRS's obtain more than just life protection,informally of course.
But I can not see why a contactor / consultant would get out of bed for less than they already charge for their specialist skills.Whereas the FPO works for a national wage and I am pretty sure that would be less than the private sector.
NOFSO's do give many brigades value for money in a dedicated role, not having to balance the multitudes of other management tasks and of course fire calls. I feel the "Service" nationally needs to recognise that it is a vital role which is carried out impartially.
How about best value, not necessarily the cheapest option!?
-
Whereas the FPO works for a national wage and I am pretty sure that would be less than the private sector.
If the FPO is working on grey book conditions then I would expect you are wrong. If the FPO is a civilian working on green book conditions then that is another matter.
I think it always ends up about money.
-
Can I suggest that it is irrelevant whether a person is paid Green or Grey book rates for their work within a FRS. The cost to the public is the same. Their business rates or council tax. Now granted these could go down if FRS staff were paid less. But equally the rates could.... and probably would..... stay the same and other services provided by the FRS be maintained. I.e. fire fighting, rescue and investigation. Best value!? :-\
Just a thought?
-
Sam,
The austerity measures are about to save 81 billion and my council tax won`t go down a penny. if a Grey book inspecting officer (watch Manager) is paid 32k and a Green book non op fso is paid 24k there is 8k for starters without considering pension contributions.
-
The idea I thought was to prevent, so to adopt a HSE type of approach of kicking people when they are down seems to fly in the face of Fire Rescue ethos.
Why does it need to be a "Fire and Rescue ethos"? The F&RS Act and the RRFSO are two completely different things. Firefighting/rescue and enforcement of legislation are also two very separate things.
I am not talking about kicking people when they are down. If we find conditions where relevant persons are being put at risk, The Order states that it is an offence and as enforcers of that order (Not as a Fire Authority under the F&R Services Act) we should take it to an appropriate conclusion. If every speed camera just sent a letter to your house 'advising' you to slow down they would not work as well as they do. (Probably a debatable example but lets not start that)
The legislation puts the on the RP to prevent risk from fire, not the enforcing authority. By robust enforcement, and coming down hard on the worst offenders, it makes other RP's take notice without the need for them to actually be inspected.
Take the New Look prosecution for example. How far do you think that message reached throughout the commercial sector? How many managers/directors will have pointed out or thought "this could happen to us" and then went and got their house in order? What about the landlord who received a prison term? It won't fix all of them, but in my opinion one good publicised prosecution will do more good nationwide than 100 inspections.
Don't forget that FRS' are going to be stretched for resources, we simply won't have the resources for what would be considered a reinspection regime. We will attend complaints, follow up fires, and maybe do some themed inspections if patterns are seen in certain trades or areas. Just like the HSE.
-
Sam,
The austerity measures are about to save 81 billion and my council tax won`t go down a penny. if a Grey book inspecting officer (watch Manager) is paid 32k and a Green book non op fso is paid 24k there is 8k for starters without considering pension contributions.
And don't forget, a WM will have had lots of money spent on initial training, management training, all the stuff that goes with being a watch manager. Why would you THEN take them OUT of the role they are trained for, and train them up in a different one?
It is like training someone up to be a barrister, then when they have done a few years in a courtroom train them up to be IT support, stick them behind a desk but keep paying them the barristers wage.
I have been doing the job a number of years now, they haven't paid to train me in firefighting, BA, incident command, hazmat, fire investigation, line rescue etc etc etc. I have been trained in fire safety, and I will possibly still be doing this job in 20 years time. In the grey book way of doing things you would have had possibly had about 5 different grey book WM's popping in and out of this one post, and just as they get good at the role they get shipped back out.
-
And don't forget, a WM will have had lots of money spent on initial training, management training, all the stuff that goes with being a watch manager. Why would you THEN take them OUT of the role they are trained for, and train them up in a different one?
It is like training someone up to be a barrister, then when they have done a few years in a courtroom train them up to be IT support, stick them behind a desk but keep paying them the barristers wage.
I have been doing the job a number of years now, they haven't paid to train me in firefighting, BA, incident command, hazmat, fire investigation, line rescue etc etc etc. I have been trained in fire safety, and I will possibly still be doing this job in 20 years time. In the grey book way of doing things you would have had possibly had about 5 different grey book WM's popping in and out of this one post, and just as they get good at the role they get shipped back out.
[/quote]
Good points, should I be worried with three years left, or should I be preparing to do risk assessments on my days off. I would like to think that with 8 years as an inspecting officer it might take a while to completely replace me. But there would be a few people who have retired on a pension who would quite happily seek re employment. Me included
-
[I have been doing the job a number of years now, they haven't paid to train me in firefighting, BA, incident command, hazmat, fire investigation, line rescue etc etc etc. I have been trained in fire safety, and I will possibly still be doing this job in 20 years time. In the grey book way of doing things you would have had possibly had about 5 different grey book WM's popping in and out of this one post, and just as they get good at the role they get shipped back out.
That is exactly right Civvy but I think you are unusual amongst your peers. What is needed above all is a career path and structure in Fire Safety Enforcement within the Fire Authorities. Most are only looking at the short term at the moment by employing former uniformed officers into a non uniformed role. By doing so they are taking on competent and experienced staff so they do not have to consider training and development. They appear to be saving money but they are not- the savings claimed are exaggerated because they are not investing in the training and development of people to make the thing sustainable in the long term.
The problem is that when these people retire for the second time in 10 years or so there will be a black hole so deep and difficult to resolve that some bright spark will then decide the easiest way out is to shift the problem by privatising fire safety or handing it over to approved inspectors or the like.
There are so many advantages in the Fire Authorities retaining direct responsibility for fire safety enforcement. Its all about joined up thinking. One body responsible for education, prevention, intervention and enforcement. Split it up and it will become unwieldy, unreactive and inefficient.
-
I quite agree with you Kurnal. Whereas I could create a body and effectively enforce the RRFSO, fire safety knowledge helps firefighters just as much as knowledge of fire behaviour helps fire safety. It would always be beneficial to have that link.
FRS' have the knowledge of where the fires and the risks are, by keeping enforcement and prevention within the FRS' remit then they can help themselves. This is where we differ from the HSE, as the HSE don't have another section that have to respond to incidents in the same way a FRS does, so the actual risk in any specific area/trade does not impact on the HSE's resources in the same way.
-
But there would be a few people who have retired on a pension who would quite happily seek re employment. Me included
I would disagree with you Dave, its not what happen in my old brigade and they all went on individual contracts not grey book conditions.
I applaud most of to days contributors but how would you achieve your aims?
-
Questions . (Rhetorical ones) ;)
1. Should operational fire staff have an understanding of Fire safety matters?
2. Would that information make them better operational Ff’s / Officers (Managers)?
3. Would a senior or potential Principal Officer have a better understanding of FS if that person works in the department and therefore make better organisational decisions due to experience gained?
4. Is the data on the origin and cause of fires as recorded in IRS accurate?
5. If not would that improve with better academic and or managerial training?
6. Would it be improved due to knowledge sharing between departments?
7. Is that best served by having a disparate organisation or a knowledge sharing symbiotic synergistic one?
My personal answer is there is room for both. Grey and green book staff (both academically recruited and re-employed operational staff). But it is only an opinion and it will only work if the different sections work together and apply knowledge sharing. I know I have made better decisions; operationally, managerially and FI wise…. due to the time I served in FS.
Just an opinion….. Doesn’t make it a fact :D
-
I look forward to the day that our FRSs are
"knowledge sharing symbiotic synergistic"
but I wont hold my breath.
Stu
-
The Fire Futures review and the cost cutting measures will have a dramatic affect on the fire services ability to enforce the RRO. To be honest they are only scratching the surface now and if they have to move enforcers to frontline duties or let inspection officers go they won’t have the resources to enforce. I firmly believe some forces will only have the staff to do fire safety audits after a fire, and hence prosecutions are likely to be the way they enforce in the future. I spoke with a Scottish fire service enforcer recently and he suggested that ‘a high profile fine will be needed to send a message out’. That coming from a Scottish FRS is of concern as they are very tolerant compared to the English.
The answer is to make the enforcement process more efficient targeting the unsafe and leaving the safe alone. Currently the risk profile means care homes and high risk sleeping accommodation get seen annually and less risky offices factories etc are left well alone. Annually only 5% of known properties are inspected in Scotland and many of those are repeat visits. Those duty holders who can demonstrate good fire safety standards and operate systems to maintain those standards should be left alone, for the FRS to concentrate on those with disregard for fire safety. A care home with very good management systems shouldn’t have an annual inspection regardless of its risk profile; it just takes an officer’s time to confirm what they already know. If a way could be developed of assuring the fire safety management of a building via an independent third party, this would allow the FRS to focus and target the poor and leave the diligent to get on with it. By having a focused efficient approach standards are raised and value for money is achieved.
-
How about a National Database of those premises that have had a fire risk assessment conducted by a competent person being a member of a UKAS accredited register of fire risk assessors?
Could this be an indication that such premises are at least making an attemt to manage fire safety in an effective way and thus do not require the supervision of the fire authority under a routine inspection program?
-
Prof
That would only work if the RP took notice and did something about it ::)
davo
-
How about a National Database of those premises that have had a fire risk assessment conducted by a competent person being a member of a UKAS accredited register of fire risk assessors?
Could this be an indication that such premises are at least making an attemt to manage fire safety in an effective way and thus do not require the supervision of the fire authority under a routine inspection program?
I'm not sure that could work,for the reasons already discussed sometime ago about the pit falls of accreditation for risk assessors.
My view is that the Fire Authorities should retain responsibility for the enforcement of Fire Safety Legislation (along with the other enforcing authorities states in the RR(FS)O)
"Civillian" officers (we are all civillian unless we work for the military by the way) are a good thing because they tend to stop in post much longer than their uniformed counter parts, whom, as already mentioned, get moved after becoming competent. This means that they become more knowledgeable and experienced in their role.
Also I think with the way things are beginning to pan out, Fire Authorities are having to smarten their act up a little, and be more proportional and professional.
Alot more training in legal practice, fire risk assessment, and on the legislation itself seems to be taking place in alot of brigades to ensure that when prosecutions go to court the cases are water tight, and can't be undermined by a savvy defence barrister.
There are an increasing amount of barristers out whom are beginning to get to grips with the RR(FS)O, and I can see that alot more cases will be challenged in future, which will drive, I believe, even more training for Inspectors.
For Shire brigades the problem is that their officers have to be multi-rolled, multi-disciplined animals, acting as flexi duty ops commanders, as well as duty fire safety officers, and thus it could be argued their knowledge and experience is less than that of an inspecting officer who purely undertakes fire safety work.
Its a difficult one to answer but I dont feel the Lib/Con administration is happy to push things like this out to the private sector.
-
Its a difficult one to answer but I don't feel the Lib/Con administration is happy to push things like this out to the private sector.
If the FRS can do it as cost effectively as the private sector then there is no need to.
Speyside I think your suggestions are the second stage the first is to make Technical Fire Safety departments more cost effective and be able to compete with the private sector.
-
How about a National Database of those premises that have had a fire risk assessment conducted by a competent person being a member of a UKAS accredited register of fire risk assessors?
Could this be an indication that such premises are at least making an attemt to manage fire safety in an effective way and thus do not require the supervision of the fire authority under a routine inspection program?
Kurnal as Davo correctly suggests a competent fire risk assessor producing a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment is only the first part. Should the assessor make a recommendation in his significant findings that the penetrations through compartment walls are lacking fire seals and the RP buys a can of foam, sprays it in the holes and thinks that ones ticked off the list; next fire doors off to B and Q and get the handy man to hang it.
The above approach won’t stand up to scrutiny and although a fire risk assessor looks at fire safety management systems he is very unlikely to put those systems to the test during his assessment, as time on site cost the client money a paper review is probably as much as can be done. .
The only way this can work is independent fire safety certification of buildings and management systems. Once a building has been certificated (like in the olden days but by the private sector and risk based) the building can be said to be fire safety compliant and thus the FRS can leave it alone as long as certification is maintained. It obviously doesn’t mean there won’t be fires in certificated buildings as those of you that used to hand out fire safety certificates will know. It does however demonstrate to insurers, the FRS and other relevant parties that the owner of the building was doing all that is reasonably possible to ensure fire safety of relevant people in that building. In court a defense of due diligence is very helpful during a prosecution.
I do think this could make a difference in the way enforcement is carried out, however the appetite for legislation won’t come from Westminster regardless of who is in power; in the regional assemblies there could be a possibility of a change in legislation. Look out for the Rose Park determination.
-
Cor blimey this has turned into cake and eat it. We cant turn a pigs ear into a silk purse in one simple step.
The fire authorities are NOT enforcing or auditing effectively. And at the moment the role of the enforcers in auditing a tiny sample of premises in a prescriptive way is an even smaller part of the whole fire safety equation than fire risk assessment by a competent person. Things need to be improved. The fire authorities did well under the old legislation but even when they had the power to certificate buildings they never resourced the reinspections except in sleeping risks and could not wait for the legislation to be changed enabling them to grant exemptions to premises which then fell out of the equation all together in practical terms.
If an RP has appointed a competent risk assessor and carefully chosen one whose work is accredited by a third party under a UKAS scheme then in my view they are not likely to cut corners in implementing the findings and the fire authority may consider other RPs who have not demonstrated such diligence to be potentially more worthy of their attention. Since the fire authorities never have and never will resource inspections and audits effectively it makes sense to identify those premises where compliance is less diligent and target the limited resources there.
Identify premises where compliance is likely to be poor? How do you do that? Well my suggestion is one way of creaming off some where it is likely to be good.
This is the spirit of the legislation and the European Directive unless I am mistaken. The employer creates the risk and should manage the risk. The competent RA is one indication that this is the case.
-
You'd be surprised how many large otherwise reputable companies appoint competent risk assessors and then fail to implement the findings, in some cases only doing so when subsequently receiving a notice or being prosecuted.....
I know from experience not inspecting just because of an FRA from an 'approved' assessor has been carried out is not safe and once the word gets out everyone will pay a bit extra for an approved assessor if they know they are far less likely to get an inspection & be caught out.
-
I dont disagree with your first point Anthony, this is bound to happen where fire safety is only one small element of the overall H&S picture. But if the RP has had a competent assessment carried out and not implemented the findings, if there is a fire they are going to be in an indefensible position.
As for your second point then at least if these companies appoint competent assessors they will get a competent risk assessment.
Lots of people are saying we need a central register of risk assessors. Such third party accreditaion is not cheap and I would suggest the most reliable indicator of a quality scheme is likely to be a scheme that is accredited by UKAS. There is currently only one such scheme - the FRACS scheme operated by Exova Warrington. Such a scheme is both difficult to achieve and expensive. There are other schemes but not UKAS accreditied.
If we want such a scheme there must be some incentive for fire risk assessors to join. The scheme has been up and running for a year, 12 months ago there were 6 assessors registered, now there are only 7 on the list. The FIA has required all its member companies to use ONLY accredited assessors from next renewal in April (all must have applied to one of the 4 schemes currently running) and the FIA has also gone into partnership with BAFE to produce a thrid party accreditiaion scheme for companies (not individuals) offering fire risk assessment. Registration with such a scheme will also be mandatory for FIA members. There must be some benefit for us to register and if fire Authorities do not trust the Industry to regulate itself then let them say so and save us all a great deal of expense and inconvenience in registering with the schemes.
I think we need to make up our minds whether we want the Employer to manage the risk as per every other branch of H&S at work, or whether we want to make a special case for fire safety to have a completely different system of enforcement as per the old certification scheme ( which was also far from perfect)
-
The fire authorities are NOT enforcing or auditing effectively. And at the moment the role of the enforcers in auditing a tiny sample of premises in a prescriptive way is an even smaller part of the whole fire safety equation than fire risk assessment by a competent person. Things need to be improved.
Not sure I agree with that.That is too much of a sweeping statement.
Can you qualify why Fire & Rescue Authorities are not auditing / enforcing effectively and how they are enforcing prescriptively?
What happens in one corner of the country may not reflect what happens elsewhere Kurnal and its important to recognise the part IRMP plays in targetting fire safety enforcement.
Re-inspections have and always will be based on priority, type of premises, and the severity of the failings found originally.
There aren't sufficient resources to re-inspect everything, and there is no need to re-inspect everything all the time anyway.
Should we be saying that Fire Authorities , for example, must re-inspect all care homes on their patch once every twelve months?
And if you do start re-inspecting one type of premises such as care homes would they be up in arms and say they are being unfairly picked on?
So here's a simple suggestion - the RP is responsible for fire safety so why don't we let them get on with it, and lets make sure the enforcing authority doesn't get involved until there has been an injury or death - vis a vis the HSE approach.
Apparently responsibility for fire safety rests with the punter and those naughty enforcing authorities are still too way too prescriptive.
So what do we want here? Something along the lines of those Approved Inspectors for Building Regulations (with all the trappings, and, dare I say it, profit driven enforcement, that comes with it?)
Should we have our register of competent risk assessors who will guide the RP in the right direction and ensure the RP follows all of their recommendations to the letter? (As we know every RP will of course implement all recommendations made by the risk assessor won't they children?!)
And can we have a truly workable independent third party accreditation scheme for fire risk assessors anyway? (considering the comments one assessor made to me in private about the current accreditation schemes out there being riddled with traps and pitfalls, and, shock horror, skull duggery, back stabbing et al)
I do agree however Kurnal that there are folks out there who want their cake and eat it. Alas thats quite impossible!
-
Well, I really am pleased I opened the can!
I have been trying to find some statistical data which would prove that an effective enforcement regime (who ever would be able) would actually drive down the non domestic fires. the only report near the mark is from CLG, but when you look closely the data is hyperthetical!
The function carried out by FRS's is a service. Statutory duty but with no profit motive, efficiency ,yes as the pot is only getting smaller but there is a rise in these incidents, so somewhere the FRS's are not getting it right. If any shareholder was in a similar organisation, I'm pretty sure they would want improvement or that function erased, but FRS's cannot do that. But if more FSO's are the answer, where is the money coming from?(rhetorical question).
IRMP note 4 leads many FRS's direction, but is that the correct direction.
Self compliance from RPs is a wonderful aspiration, but is it any thing more than that? The fine line between advice (duty) and consultation (money). There are emerging accredidation schemes, but is it correct to put so much onus on these which are in their infancy. granted most of the people will have competency , but as in every profession there will be the minority to spoil things.
If the FRS's follow the HSE approach of reactive inspections I can only see a further increase in fire losses, with fatalities before a great public out cry and low and behold...full circle back to FRS's with programmed inspections. I can not (I really am trying not to be blinkered) see where private organisations can make this a profitable endevour, without dramatically increasing up front costs to the RP's.
In the big society there is a need for national standards, not only in engineered solutions but also the training & progression routes for FSO's
-
Prof
Surely fire is not "every other branch of H & S"?
Most deaths in H & S are down to stupidity and/or risk taking. The HSE produce over 200 specific guides, there's no excuse to claim ignorance.
The average punter has the CLG guides :o
Its very mistaken IMO to lump them together, you can't do a fire inspection at the same time as a H &S inspection as some people want.
The FRS audit forms will identify areas to target (as if the IOs didn't know ;D) and if that means targetting certain sectors then so be it, old folks have no control over their environment and one day it might be me or you in there.
The reference to approved Inspectors has me worried too, we all know of lots of things missed by Building Inspectors, even critical stuff.
The poor take up of FRACS surprises me, presumably there is a substantial cost involved ???
davo
-
Davo
Fees for FRACs are
Registration and document review fee £350
Technical interview fee and issue of cert and ID card £300
All plus VAT = £780 at the new rate. all none refundable.That is the cost just to be registered.
Also after year 2 there is an annual fee of £250 + VAT = £300.
The certificate lasts 4 years after which there is a re-certification fee, the cost of which has not been announced.
So not cheap and as you say so far only 9 have been successful, I wonder how many have not been successful?.
-
Accredited third party certification is well established as a way of policing and improving standards and it works reasonably well in the active and passive sectors. Indeed many trade bodies insist on their members having it as a requirement for membership. As the Kurnal has informed us the FIA with 86 fire risk assessment company members will be insisting on non accredited certification in the short term and accredited certification when it is available from two or more providers. The FRACS scheme is the only accredited scheme currently and I would imagine that any other accredited scheme will be similarly priced when available, due to the requirements UKAS have for the competence of those who assess and the detail required by the CBs in working to and being audited against an International standard.
However competent fire risk assessors are not competent auditors/enforcers and thus getting back to the original thread topic, ‘private sector enforcement of technical fire safety’.
I think what Studius is asking is straight forward, can the mandatory services offered by the FRS be offered by the private sector and if so will they be as reliable and will they be value for money. Naturally enforcement is one of the services which can be looked at.
Earlier in the thread I suggested a possible way that the FRS could be assisted by the private sector to be more focused in their enforcement duties and target the less diligent owners/employers.
There is another alternative which has had support from within the FRS; competence assessment of auditors. By developing an independent third party certification scheme for auditors it would be possible to standardise and bench mark the FRS auditors. The competence of FRS auditors has been discussed many times on this forum. It is of concern from within the Fire Service too and I believe Iain Cox has been tasked with looking in to it.
However if the scheme could be offered out to professional fire risk assessors too, it may be possible to have what would effectively be retained auditors. These could then be used with confidence to assist with the enforcement duties. This may be more efficient as they will be freelance and one would hope a more viable option than mearly reducing audits due to lack of funds. They would be controlled by the FRS and the FRS will still retain the ‘policing’ element.
There has to be some acceptance from the FRS that what they are doing isn’t working well and with the impending cuts it isn’t going to improve.
Take a look at the figures for the FRS audits year 09/10 available on the communities web site they demonstrate to me that the FRS and the RRO are not improving fire safety standards. Fire deaths are down granted but I don’t believe that is due to enforcement or the risk based legislation.
Here is one figure that should illustrate the scale of the problem; 43% of buildings audited by the FRS in England last year were unsatisfactory. Therefore if you take a typical high street and walk down it, nearly every other building has unsatisfactory fire safety provision. That’s over 32,000 properties inspected last year were unsatisfactory and the most concerning thing of all is that only 9,147 were deemed to have been brought up to standard following the enforcement action. Less than a third improved sufficiently following the FRS intervention to be fire safe.
-
It depends what you mean by unsatisfactory.
It also depends on the inspection policy. I would hope that FRSs are focusing on premises that are likely to have problems......
-
"Fire deaths are down granted but I don’t believe that is due to enforcement or the risk based legislation". [/i]
What do you believe this is down to then Speyside?
-
Speyside
You are saying enforcement isn't working, yet fire deaths in commercial premises are reducing.
Also bear in mind that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order gave the fire authority responsibility for enforcing standards in premises it previously didn't have any jurisdiction over.
It is all well and good saying that FRS are failing, but what exactly is your basis for stating that? You gave the analargy that the UK F&R Service visited every other shop in high streets throughout the land and found failings in all of them.
But they were probably not failings which put people at serious and imminent risk. They were probably minor failings. Also some may have been failings that could not, for whatever reason, have been dealt with under previous legislation (particularly the FP Act 1971 for example) and have now had to be mopped up and dealt with.
You then compared the amount ofprimary inspections versus the amount of follow up inspections. The frequency or requirment to undertake follow up inspections depends very much on the failings found and timescales agreed to put failings right. Again you do not seem to have taken that into account.
So you have to factor all that in and appreciate how the stats published by CLG are recorded and collated, and decide whether or not it paints a true picture.
Im certainly not saying that FRS can't or shouldn't improve. All im saying is that both Speyside and Kurnal have made what I consider to be sweeping statements without providing any real evidence that enforcement isn't working or without offering any real terms solutions to measure or improve current enforcement practices.
-
I've said this before but Fire and H&S are not comparable.
With H&S you normally get a single death or single injury per incident from a non compliance.
With Fire it is normally multiple deaths and/or injuries per incident from a non compliance.
Enforcement and regulation must work as historically there were many big fires with multiple deaths (resulting in new legislation or a change in guidance/enforcement practice), but in the last 30 years there have still been a fair number of big fires, but most involve few or no deaths (excluding fire-fighters as the legislation was never directly for their safety).
Not scientific, but illustrative itself.
-
I would actually think that more than 43% of buildings have fire safety problems at any one time. That does not mean that more than 43% of buildings are unsafe. A fire safety problem or non-complaince can range from not recording your prescribed information, to having locked exits. Do the risk assessors of this forum find that during approx 50% of their risk assessments they find no problems that need to be addressed?
What the records will fail to show is that the older inspection regimes (Wp regs, FP act) were often not recorded in the same way that the 'audits' are now. If I went to a factory under the FP act or Wp regs, and fixed all their fire safety problems all that would be recorded is the standard in which I left the premises. (i.e. Fixed) Now, to follow the enforcement management model properly, we should be recording the premises exactly as found which will then give us our course of action. (Advice, enforcement, prosecution) We then take that course of action, and should then audit again (or 'rescore' the premises) once all the work is completed to give the premises a new risk score for the IRMP.
What the figures possibly show is more than likely down to us making a better record of when we have found problems and given advice or got an agreement to rectify deficiencies.
-
Enforcement and regulation must work as historically there were many big fires with multiple deaths (resulting in new legislation or a change in guidance/enforcement practice), but in the last 30 years there have still been a fair number of big fires, but most involve few or no deaths (excluding fire-fighters as the legislation was never directly for their safety).
Anthony, I think one of the problems is that some senior people look at it from the point of view of "what difference are you making?" They do not see enforcement as something that maintains a level of fire safety. It is relatively easy to demonstrate their point of view:
Road deaths on Somestreet Avenue
Year Deaths
2005 3
2006 4
2007 0 <- N.B. Speed camera installed late 2006
2008 0
2009 0
2010 0
"What a waste of bloody money that speed camera is, it has made no difference for the past 3 years."
-
"Fire deaths are down granted but I don’t believe that is due to enforcement or the risk based legislation". [/i]
What do you believe this is down to then Speyside?
Fire deaths in non domestic premises are on a slow steady decline and have been for some time, there is no acceleration in decline from 2006 when the FSO came in to operation, and no significant reversal either. Therefore the reason for the consistent decline can reasonably assumed not to be as a result of the change in enforcement or legislation but should be attributed to other factors.
The main ones I believe are improved health and safety practice. Improvement and increase in detection and suppression systems. The continued improvements in electrical appliance safety. PAT testing. CE marking. The national decrease in manufacturing process. Part P electrical installations. I don’t have any figures to demonstrate how these have contributed but I guess the FRS doesn’t have any figures as to why non domestic fire deaths are on a steady decline either. I do believe that in 2009 the domestic fire death figure rose by 1%. I think that equated to two more deaths than the previous year.
I do think that the FSO has contributed slightly but I don’t believe any significant proportion of the decline in non domestic fire deaths can be attributed to the effectiveness of the enforcement process or the introduction of the FSO
-
The fire authorities are NOT enforcing or auditing effectively. And at the moment the role of the enforcers in auditing a tiny sample of premises in a prescriptive way is an even smaller part of the whole fire safety equation than fire risk assessment by a competent person. Things need to be improved.
Not sure I agree with that.That is too much of a sweeping statement.
Can you qualify why Fire & Rescue Authorities are not auditing / enforcing effectively and how they are enforcing prescriptively?
What happens in one corner of the country may not reflect what happens elsewhere Kurnal and its important to recognise the part IRMP plays in targetting fire safety enforcement.
Re-inspections have and always will be based on priority, type of premises, and the severity of the failings found originally.
There aren't sufficient resources to re-inspect everything, and there is no need to re-inspect everything all the time anyway.
Should we be saying that Fire Authorities , for example, must re-inspect all care homes on their patch once every twelve months?
And if you do start re-inspecting one type of premises such as care homes would they be up in arms and say they are being unfairly picked on?
So here's a simple suggestion - the RP is responsible for fire safety so why don't we let them get on with it, and lets make sure the enforcing authority doesn't get involved until there has been an injury or death - vis a vis the HSE approach.
Apparently responsibility for fire safety rests with the punter and those naughty enforcing authorities are still too way too prescriptive.
So what do we want here? Something along the lines of those Approved Inspectors for Building Regulations (with all the trappings, and, dare I say it, profit driven enforcement, that comes with it?)
Should we have our register of competent risk assessors who will guide the RP in the right direction and ensure the RP follows all of their recommendations to the letter? (As we know every RP will of course implement all recommendations made by the risk assessor won't they children?!)
And can we have a truly workable independent third party accreditation scheme for fire risk assessors anyway? (considering the comments one assessor made to me in private about the current accreditation schemes out there being riddled with traps and pitfalls, and, shock horror, skull duggery, back stabbing et al)
I do agree however Kurnal that there are folks out there who want their cake and eat it. Alas thats quite impossible!
You are of course right and it was too much of a sweeping statement made in the heat of an argument. Yes I can justify to an extent but only in qualitative terms because as we all know all the former OMPIS and other statistics that measured the performance of fire safety departments have been scrapped. My comments are based on staffing levels and workloads in the past, a knowledge of what can be achieved based on experience having managed several fire safety area offices and, looking far outside my own little corner of the UK how inspection teams have been decimated and at the same time and quite rightly their role has diversified in gathering information around a much broader perception of risk.
We never had enough resources to support reinspection program under the old legislation and that only covered designated premises. So now they cannot afford but to target specific high-risk premises and the definition of risk must be dynamic based on fire statistics and demographic factors as well as the traditional sleeping risks etc. Personally I support the concept of making the person who creates the risk responsible and accountable for managing that risk and I believe it is the only practicable way forward, driven by robust enforcement.
Fire authorities do need to use targeting and do need to find a way to target those premises where compliance is low. Perceptions of high-risk or low risk, sleeping or process risk are irrelevant, if we focus on the level of compliance the risk will look after itself. Compliance is inevitably low where fires occur, another good reason for keeping enforcement with the fire authority and making sure the operations and enforcement are tightly joined with good communications and rapid investigation. Then you can hit them hard with a robust investigation that will stand up in court and set an example to others. On the other hand compliance is much more likely to be high where the responsible person has taken the trouble to appoint competent assistance in fulfilling their responsibilities. Hence my original suggestion.
I fully realise that for a range of reasons the action plan within a risk assessment may be ignored but by the same token if it's written down and the responsible person knows about it then they can have no defence if things go pear shaped, and would be lambs to the slaughter in court.
Speyside suggests that buildings should be fully certificated. This takes us further than the full circle back to the old legislation and beyond and I cannot ever see there being appetite to introduce legislation of this nature. I can see potential for it in the private sector, perhaps the blue-chip organisations in conjunction with their insurers, and maybe such a scheme would be universally accepted by fire authorities and a light touch enforcement applied.
-
The main ones I believe are improved health and safety practice. Improvement and increase in detection and suppression systems. The continued improvements in electrical appliance safety. PAT testing. CE marking. The national decrease in manufacturing process. Part P electrical installations. I don’t have any figures to demonstrate how these have contributed but I guess the FRS doesn’t have any figures as to why non domestic fire deaths are on a steady decline either. I do believe that in 2009 the domestic fire death figure rose by 1%. I think that equated to two more deaths than the previous year.
I do think that the FSO has contributed slightly but I don’t believe any significant proportion of the decline in non domestic fire deaths can be attributed to the effectiveness of the enforcement process or the introduction of the FSO
As the years progress there is a general improvement in the housing stock, older properties (not code dompliant) are demolished and new (code compliant) ones are built. The average state of electrical installations improves in line with the move to newer properties. The density of people in homes is slowly decreasing. The general standard of living is increasing. Smoking is decreasing. There are many societal reasons along with the (much maligned) Building Regulations and along with the community fire safety efforts of FRSs that are driving the downward trend of fire deaths.
Just think about the possible consequences for fire deaths if domestic sprinklers were mandatory.
Stu
-
Sorry.
My last post was all about domestic fire deaths and I just realised you're all talking about non domestic fire deaths. I really should read what other people say before I start off on one. Ignore my drivel above.
Stu
-
Fire deaths in non domestic premises are on a slow steady decline and have been for some time, there is no acceleration in decline from 2006 when the FSO came in to operation, and no significant reversal either. Therefore the reason for the consistent decline can reasonably assumed not to be as a result of the change in enforcement or legislation but should be attributed to other factors.
The main ones I believe are improved health and safety practice. Improvement and increase in detection and suppression systems. The continued improvements in electrical appliance safety. PAT testing. CE marking. The national decrease in manufacturing process. Part P electrical installations. I don’t have any figures to demonstrate how these have contributed but I guess the FRS doesn’t have any figures as to why non domestic fire deaths are on a steady decline either. I do believe that in 2009 the domestic fire death figure rose by 1%. I think that equated to two more deaths than the previous year.
I do think that the FSO has contributed slightly but I don’t believe any significant proportion of the decline in non domestic fire deaths can be attributed to the effectiveness of the enforcement process or the introduction of the FSO
Interesting. If the "should" in your first paragraph was changed to "Could" I may well partially agree with you Speyside.
The increase in decline in non domestic fire deaths started with the introduction of the 1971 FP act. So your comments make no allowance for work carried out by FRS (Brigades then) over the years. Yes it was different legislation and applied differently but it obviously made premises safer, your own figures say so, as there is no increase in the death figures post RRO?;D
another good reason for keeping enforcement with the fire authority and making sure the operations and enforcement are tightly joined with good communications and rapid investigation
Agreed Midland :) in my opinion FRS's should be more open to knowledge sharing between Ops and FS both TFS and CS.
-
Agreed Midland :) in my opinion FRS's should be more open to knowledge sharing between Ops and FS both TFS and CS.
Tee hee it wasn't me actually said that but don't tell anyone.
On serious note knowledge sharing between all departments within individual brigades is essential and something I know our Brigade in particular was never any good at, speaking tocolleagues from other brigades they say the same thing.
We are beginning to get better at it though, but of course there is always room for improvement.
-
OOOOPPPPSSS :-[
Sorry Kurnal ..... new boy getting to grips with the site and the quote system.
Hummmmmm nice to be a new boy again ;)
-
As said above I don't credit the FSO with having reduced non domestic fire casualties - I credit enforcement full stop, which started with the Fire Precautions Act (& to a far far lesser extent OSRP Act & Factories Act).
Most significant fire deaths post Factories Act 61 & pre FPA were not in industrial/manufacturing but the service sector (shops, leisure, hotels) so the loss of primary & secondary sector industries isn't substantially relevant.
As many places breach H&S legislation do fire and some of those that (just) meet fire safety standards would fail a H&S inspection, but because the fire officer traditionally visited more often than an EHO (unless fast food/restaurant) thats why the fire precautions are begrudgingly complied with.
With fire a purely reactive enforcement system will result in a major incident and egg on faces - a lot of people see high compliance these days purely because high complying workplaces are the ones most likely to bring in external consultants, but in my job I see a lot of the other side of the coin and without pro active enforcement the number of borderline/substandard premises will increase and deteriorate.
-
Midland
I have suggested three ways to improve the enforcement process.
Scottish figures tell us that they only manage to audit 5% of known buildings annually
England is a little better at just over 8% annually
Four years after the RRO came in, an average of 43% of properties inspected are “unsatisfactory” in terms of their fire precautions. The definition of unsatisfactory is not mine but that of the FRS and that varies from force to force as we all know. Just ask Mr TESCO
40% of schools unsatisfactory
52% of licensed premises unsatisfactory
51% of hotels unsatisfactory
I could go on as none of the various property types are particularly good figures
In the English stats there is a breakdown of which articles were not satisfactory but I can’t judge how severe each breach was from the figures.
Two questions before I attempt to get back on topic;
When is a 43% (average) ‘unsatisfactory’ an indicator of a high standard?
Try this headline out flight worthiness; 43% of planes unsatisfactory
How is such a small inspection rate going to influence the 90%+ of building owners not inspected annually to improve their fire safety measures? (Particularly those with a low risk profile)
Please don’t think I am knocking the FRS as they have a very difficult task, hence back to the thread.
How can the private sector help the FRS in technical fire safety enforcement?
I believe it can, but I also believe the FRS are too protective of their policing and considering the fire futures review and what every other public sector is going through I think they need to change attitude.
-
Speyside your suggestions will need extra resources and in the present climate it will not stand a cat in hells chance of being considered if it saved money then that would be a different matter.