FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: kurnal on September 02, 2011, 07:05:00 AM
-
In the wake of the cuts the vultures are circling round the Fire Safety Order to cream off what they can to survive.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/better-regulation/docs/f/11-985-future-local-better-regulation-office-consultation.pdf
Am I alone in thinking that this looks like a desperate attempt to create a new empire for an authority which is otherwise likely to be wound up?
The “Local Better Regulation Office” has been recommended for closure and to justify their continued existence they are trying to claim the FSO as their own. I may be wrong. If you would like to respond to the consultation, the closing date is 9th September.
Do we really need yet another tier of enforcement? Why not just fix what is percieved to be wrong rather than setting up yet further levels of confusion?
-
Hi Prof
Yes, it seems a long process and will tie local FRS hands somewhat.
Whilst it is appropriate for some of the legislation, it is not suitable for Fire. I can see it working for H & S where there is a wealth of info and cases stated
davo
-
Kurnal I don't see it that way, to me it appears one department is being closed and absorbed into another. As for the FSO and other legislation, it is proposed the enforcement will be subject to the Primary Authority Scheme (PAS).
As for PAS it seems a company that operates over a number of local authority boundaries can choose one and the others have to follow their advice and methods of enforcement. How this would apply to FRS and consequently the FSO I need it explained in words of one syllable. However I haven't given up yet I shall persevere.
-
I fully agree.
The removal of the RRFSO and the Licensing Act from the Primary Authority Scheme has already been addressed in a consultation, and the decision has already been made for very good reasons. Local risks require local control.
-
There were no good reasons to exclude it first time round-just politics and self protection by the F&RS. The various FRS that haver chosen to ignore LAPS agreements have blown it for themselves and a Primary Authority Scheme (I like the term PAS) is the answer. The proposal should receive support and we will provide evidence of FRS ignoring LAPS agreements as support in our consultation response.
-
I am not sure why Colin suggests that we should all welcome it and see it as a Good Thing.
Many fire authorities embraced lead partnership schemes in the past.
http://library.rbfrs.co.uk/TROVEPROGS/TroveAMDocument.aspx?/IS=568936627/LI=Document/ID=40/OS=1/DI=6008/DS=6008/LO=0/XD=6283/RW=1600/RH=1200/CD=32/TC=1/VD=DocLib/WV=7/ST=ac/AC=AP/FI=111/AM=Mozilla/HU=EmptyURL
There was also the LANTAC agreements.
Were they a success?
I suppose such a scheme could be a factor in say enabling a retail chain to adopt their own colour scheme for exit signage because they only have to persuade a single authority to accept it?
I wonder how staff will be recruited and who will train the staff of the PAS in the enforcement of fire safety , and how they will ensure standards consistent with the generality of the local fire brigades to avoid a two tier standard of enforcement. Does it just mean the big boys can buy the favour of a lead partner the rest are cast to their fate as determined by their local fire service.
When when I read the consultation document and see some the lobby groups in favour of such schemes it automatically makes me nervous because I suspect that politics and prejudice may well take precedence in their view rather than for example good standards of fire safety within their chain.
Yes it may take emotion and local politics / community opinion out of decisions especially if the lead authority is remote from the community where any digression takes place but that can be a bad thing as well as good. What is it Mr Cameron keeps banging on about? The importance of Localism isnt it? Does not this fly in the face of all that and pander to the interests of big business?
If we go down this path too far it will be planning next and a Mesco supermarket in every village.
Puts head below parapet and awaits the inevitable missiles from the direction of Surrey.
-
Kurnal, you need to get out more and witness the diametrically opposed requirements of different EAs experienced by large groups. Then you will understand.
-
I am unlikely to to witness this by getting out more Colin. I am out a great deal as it is and see first hand for myself the problems on the ground and cannot see how setting up another large unwieldy and remote tier of enforcement will help improve or even maintain standards of fire safety in the shops pubs and warehouses of the UK.
I speak to local managers at the sharp end every day, I see the pressures they are under in terms of space and staffing and building management overheads and the knock on consequences for basic fire precautions at the point of delivery. I know exactly how large brewery chains, large retail chains and remotely controlled convenience stores work and what the Board demand from their local management.
Local enforcement by local fire services is difficult for business to predict and for them to control, they do not know when they may get a visit. They respond quickly to local problems and have the ability to hit the company hard. They have no vested interests other than fire safety standards within their area.
The big companies would be much happier with the fire services off their backs and instead to work with a large, remote enforcement regime that is slow to respond, will work to a pre arranged inspection program and that has its eye on National rather than local politics. In particular one that they can control, that they can have in their pocket in the same way that big business sometimes controls and influences approved building inspectors.
I would like to see proper evidence of the alleged failures and inconsistency by the fire services and then see if we can fix the machine we have before we try and invent something new. I wager half of the critics are repeating hearsay and probably quarter of the rest are frustrated because they have got away with something in one area and cant get away with the same thing somewhere else.
Refreshing to see you are supporting the creation of a further tier of civil servants though, even if it is at the expense of the fire service.
-
Surely not, K :o
After all, we know CT only has time for one, the rest are all cr*p
davo
Remember his (allegedly) FOI request whereby he proved beyond all doubt this is the case ;D
-
What I would like to know how PAS would work at a practical level.
There would be many PA’s the IO’s would have to liaise with when conducting audits in national companies and the additional expense this will mean. Would it not be better to have one PA the DCLG and they should get their act together, similar to how the Home Office dealt with the FPA when it was introduced and after.
-
The DCLG ho ho ho h ho ho stop it Thomas you are slitting my sides, no really please ho ho ho ho ho ho.
-
Hi Tom.
What you suggest is not a bad idea, unfortunately DCLG just aren't geared for that at present, but it's not to say the couldn't be in future (if the will was there)
Laird Todd... "Ho Ho Ho" to you too - infact you already have white hair, all you need now is a brilliant white beard you would make an excellent Santa Clause. Would you be available for the local school Christmas fete - Payment will be in bottles of Talisker.
-
I have never dealt with the DCLG but the home office wasn't much cop neither, but it isn't rocket science what was done when the FPA was introduced. The appropriate minister should knock a few heads together instead of reinventing the wheel, and come up with a similar system like the FIRE PRECAUTIONS ACT 1971 - Circular's which should achieve similar results to the PAS.
It seems to me to be about consistency which was never going to improve with risk assessment everybody has their own opinion.
-
Thomas you have not missed much. I liked the Home Office people.
Retters, is that local to Bordersley Green , you mean?
-
Kurnal I don't see it that way, to me it appears one department is being closed and absorbed into another. As for the FSO and other legislation, it is proposed the enforcement will be subject to the Primary Authority Scheme (PAS).
As for PAS it seems a company that operates over a number of local authority boundaries can choose one and the others have to follow their advice and methods of enforcement. How this would apply to FRS and consequently the FSO I need it explained in words of one syllable. However I haven't given up yet I shall persevere.
Tom you are absolutely right and I had initially misunderstood the intention of the change. Yes it is a Primary Authority Scheme enabling large enterprises to enter into a partnership with a particular fire and rescue service to enforce fire safety across their range of properties and across political boundaries. That said I still have concerns over how it would operate, take the following paragraph as an example.
Participating businesses are able to work with their primary authority to develop an inspection plan agreeing priorities for inspection nationally. Inspections plans help other local authorities focus their local inspection resources where they will have the most impact, eliminating unnecessary checks and saving time and resource for both the business and local authorities.
How does this sit with the local fire service planning their risk management and inspection program within their IRMP, if for example a certain national chain of care homes set up a PAS with a remote fire service and for the care homes operated by them a program of 5 yearly reinspections was introduced compared to the annual need identified by the IRMP?
What would be the procedure in a national nightclub chain if someone comlains about a locked fire exit door or if the local brigade finds serious breaches of fire safety legislation when attending a fire? Would their hands be tieds or would they still be able to respond within their own premises in a dynamic manner?
Will we have dual standards?
-
Heres some more that bothers me.
The current duty to “have regard to” inspection plans should be amended so that local authorities are obliged to follow inspection plans drawn up by a Primary Authority
The current duty for local authorities to “give notice” to Primary Authorities when deviating from inspection plans should be amended so that local authorities are obliged to obtain consent in advance from the Primary Authority
Local authorities should be obliged to provide feedback on inspections to the Primary Authority so that inspection plans can be updated to accommodate current compliance activity by business and to ensure that local issues can be addressed.
Last time this was reviewed, Fire Safety legislation was omitted for the following reasons:
0.12 We feel that including the Fire Safety Order would be impractical as it conflicts with the principles of Integrated Risk Management Plans. The Government is concerned that Primary Authority involvement would be limited to giving extremely high level advice to any business that is partnered.
The nature of the risks presented by fire (i.e.that it can spread from one business to another) are extremely localised. Consequently, two identical branches of a multi-business site could be required to take two very different approaches to fire safety because one neighbours a business that stores flammable goods and the other does not. This position was strongly supported by the Chief Fire Officers Association and the majority of Fire and Rescue Services, including the two largest authorities, Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority.
10.13 The Government also feels that including the Fire Safety Order in the scope of the scheme would require Fire and Rescue Authorities to divert resources from high risk premises to large multi-site businesses and retailers that are, in the main, considered to be low risk. Such an outcome would contradict one of the core principles of Hampton – that regulatory activity should be focused on those businesses that present highest risk.
What has changed since then?
-
A General Election. A financial crisis. CFOA being a bit cack
-
Fire and Rescue Authorities taking no heed to LAPS agreements, contrary to what CFOA tried to convince people would happen with such agreements?
-
Yes but whats in it for the brigade and more to the point the local ratepayers?
-
Nothing Kurnal. Sometimes you just need to be altrusitickzwy. In our consultation response, we have offered to give evidence of why you need such schemes.
-
Now you are talking my language Colin. I am absolutely in favour of being altruistic with other peoples money.
Assume I run a chain of cere homes lets call it Kurnals Cross Health care. I have 800 care homes and reach a lead authority paranership agreement with Toddshire fire and rescue service. How many person hours will it take to service this agreement if each care home warrants a 2 hour annual inspection and say 1 hour to follow up on those where things were not as they should be. 2400 person hours per year onm inspections and the same to provide admin and management of the partnership. At the ratepayers expense, the cost of two employees just to service a relationship with one partner.
How can this be cost effective and fair on ratepayers at a time when we are cutting jobs and making savings across the board?
-
Big Al, I am lost. If the homes need inspected they need inspected. They will be inspected by their friendly local FRS. In Kurnalzwxskshire, the officers will tell them to upgrade all the doors to 60 minutes. In Gadanskshire, they will tell them to fit smoke seals and strips to all the exiiting 15-20 min doors. Of your 800 homes, Big Al, you will get 796 different recommendations, even though they are identical in design and management.
Then you will come to Toddshire F&RS, the PAS (I love writing those letters!). They will say just a cotton-picking minute. The party line for Kurnal Cross Healthcare, who we know very well and for whom there are agreed policies is that existing BS 459 doors are fine but there is a policy to upgrade them all with strips and seals over the next 24 months , and Big Al the proprietor is budgeting for it by cutting down imports of Polish vodka.
Now Al, you could have had a LAPS agreement already. You might think it would have done the same thing. The problem is they are an arrogant bunch of officers in Kurnalzwxskshire. The officer dealing with it is 150 years old and still yearns for the return of the F P Act. His boss has been in fire safety for 3 months as a punishment for allowing the King of Kurnalland's palace to burn down. So the old geezer says to you, Big Al, a plague of locusts on your LAPS agreements, Al, they are not legally enforceable and so we pay no heed to them in Kurnalzwxskshire. Then what do you do, Al??
The Fire and rescue service have brought the PAS ( I wrote it again!) on themselves.
Please note the above story is purely fictitious to make a hypothetical point. Any resembalnce to any party living or dead is purely coincidental.
-
Seems to me that there would be much better ways to address inconsistencies in approach.
For example
Someone could write some guidance documents for fire doors, care homes etc like that old geezer who recently wrote a tome on flats.
Then someone could offer training courses on fire risk assessment at a central fire training establishment or better still on a mobile basis. It would be easy to justify additional training from a cost/benefit/efficinecy and dare I say better regulation standpoint. Regulators should be consistent and competent after all.
Then someone could introduce a register of competent fire safety auditors and it could be the expectation that all fire safety auditors employed by fire brigades should aspire to the register and indeed a third party certification scheme for fire brigades- lets say when two such UKAS accredited schemes become available?
I think PAS schemes are like driving nails into the plaster of the enforcement wall to cover up cracks. Cracks that can only be properly repaired by underpinning the foundations. And banging nails in will only make the cracks look worse whilst doing nothing to stop them spreading.
And that whilst the foundations are not being supported very well at the moment, it would be too easy to listen to the predators who for their own self interest would love to see the wall fall down so they can build a new house of cards in its place.
-
Yes that would work if the local enforcement bodies played nicely. one option is to put them on the maughty step.
Thats what this consultation is about (ish)
-
Should I name them and shame them Wee B ? Can I please, pretty please. I offered the nice consultation people chapter and verse.