FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: colin todd on October 24, 2014, 03:38:53 PM
-
Hopefully a more rational debate than can be found here recently. The debate is scheduled for next Wednesday evening, and will no doubt be reported in the media thereafter. The important point relates to the need for fire risk assessors to be qualified, preferably by TPC.
Herewith the full motion:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28877.aspx?SearchType=Simple&Keyword=rosepark&ExactPhrase=True&DateChoice=0&SortBy=DateSubmitted&ResultsPerPage=10
-
Amen
-
That's very monosyllabic, Wullie?
-
The proposal appears to refer to personal competence and certification rather than company certification.
-
I think its not that specific Big Al.
-
That's very monosyllabic, Wullie?
I would have replied but I don't know what that means??
-
It means, Wullie, that your cryptic reply was only one word long albeit that it was not truly monosyllabic (comprising just one syllable) but bisyllabic--AE MEN.
I was not sure what it meant, though I am aware that Amen means so be it. In the absence of grown up discussion about TPC in other threads, and as one of the good guys in the profession, as evidenced by your certification to SP 205, I wondered if you would care to amplify. (You probably meant in that one little word, something like typical of Scotland to lead the way for their less fortunate neighbours, and I hope that the motion, which already has cross party support, leads to change in Scotland but I may be reading too much into your comment.
-
Sorry to spoil the illusion Colin but its Northern Ireland who are already ahead of Scotland on this one.
The motion, as presented in the link you provided, simply says that PEOPLE (Note NOT companies) offering services in fire risk assessment should be properly qualified, preferably by third party certification.
This to me suggests that they are looking towards personal rather than company TPC. And its clearly the people walking the floor who should be competent and company schemes such as SP205 are a little wishy washy in that regard, especially for large companies with a large number of assessors based in wide geographical regions. I agree its too early for detailed analysis of the Scottish motion but I suggest if anything they are likely to follow the NI model?
-
Big Al, you are reading too much into person in this context. A company is a person in law. I think the MSP will probably embrace both TPC of companies and persons in his speech. You should also note that in NI the need for competence is restricted to the care sector and even then there is an expressed preference on the part of my good friends in the RQIA for companies that are TPC.
-
It means, Wullie, that your cryptic reply was only one word long albeit that it was not truly monosyllabic (comprising just one syllable) but bisyllabic--AE MEN.
I was not sure what it meant, though I am aware that Amen means so be it. In the absence of grown up discussion about TPC in other threads, and as one of the good guys in the profession, as evidenced by your certification to SP 205, I wondered if you would care to amplify. (You probably meant in that one little word, something like typical of Scotland to lead the way for their less fortunate neighbours, and I hope that the motion, which already has cross party support, leads to change in Scotland but I may be reading too much into your comment.
Thank you, I think that sums it up very well and was exactly what I was going to write but thought Amen would be more concise due to time constraints tendering for work we have gained by maintaining our TPC.
-
Any move to increase the credibility, validity and competence of the FRA profession is one that should be applauded and supported.
I am cynical however as to the motive of such a motion - is it to increase these values within Scotland or to simply benefit a handful of organisations local to the MSP who has been lobbied by individuals who seek to gain a financial advantage?
If the 3rd Party schemes were less bureaucratic and cumbersome, then perhaps there would be a larger uptake of the said schemes however for any small business potentially consisting of 1 or 2 individuals, the time and cost required to apply, join and remain a member of these schemes is prohibitive and exclusive to larger companies with more resources.
Surely a more robust CPD scheme within Scotland with an emphasis on development and education would serve the industry better by encouraging those on the fringes to increase their individual competency.
We are 3rd Party certificated for a part of our business which to be honest isn't worth the paper its written on! It is only our own strive to improve that keeps us on the right tracks and recruit and retain clients.
-
Amen to that
-
Big Al, you are reading too much into person in this context. A company is a person in law. I think the MSP will probably embrace both TPC of companies and persons in his speech. You should also note that in NI the need for competence is restricted to the care sector and even then there is an expressed preference on the part of my good friends in the RQIA for companies that are TPC.
I hope your good friends are not cherry picking Dot.
I refer to your response to my concerns on the wording of the RQIA letter last year when I posted:-
"So from further examination of the letter it would seem that if I go for accreditation to carry on my work at residential homes it could well be a waste of time and money as RQIA is advising home owners to "preferably" use companies to carry out or review their FRAs.
As will the word "recommendation" in the letter be enforced so will the word "preferably".
Your reply was:- "Nearly, if you are carrying out FRAs on a commercial basis you are a company. If your company is certificated under a scheme such as BAFE SP 205 then you are fine. And the time given by RQIA is to allow them time to comply BUT also for those working in NI to become certificated".
I am certified under a scheme such as BAFE SP205 or is 205 the only acceptable registration scheme now?
I can also advise that I have heard from a reliable source, which I trust, is that RQIA have accepted FRAs undertaken by Care Home owners and, as far as I'm aware, non are registered.
-
GB, your suggestion that the MSP is fostering the commercial interests of TPC fire risk assessors is to say the least distasteful. Clearly, you confuse Holyrood with Westminster. His concern is for the 14 of his constituents who died in the worst fire disaster since the Kings Cross disaster in 1987, some or all of whom would have lived had the fire risk assessment for Rosepark (carried out by Mr James Reid) been suitable and sufficient, nor might the fire have even occurred.
For avoidance of doubt:
James Reid was a self-employed business consultant, who provided advice in employment law and health and safety. Between 1995 and 2003 the division of work between employment law and health and safety was about 60/40. The health and safety work which he undertook covered a wide range of health and safety matters.
Before becoming self-employed in 1995, Mr Reid had been employed for a number of years in managerial positions, firstly in Scottish Bus Group and then with Insurance Courier Services.
Mr Reid held a NEBOSH General Certificate in Occupational Safety and Health, acquired following a course of study at Stevenson College. He was a Technician Member (formerly Associate Member) of the Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The basic requirement for that Membership was to hold the NEBOSH General Certificate. As a member of the Territorial Army, he had attended a HM Forces Unit NCO Fire Course in 1998. In September 1999, he had undertaken a one day fire safety audit and fire risk assessment course. He held no specialist qualification in fire risk assessment.
Mr Reid acknowledged that the assessment (for Rosepark care Home) did not address the risk to residents of the Home.
TPC is a no brainer.
-
Almost here, BAFE SP 205 happens to be the largest TPC scheme for fire risk assessment companies, and is operated by 3 CBs, but there are two other schemes as I am sure you are aware. Since all are UKAS accredited, they make the grade as far as the RQIA letter (for which that awfully nice Kelsall thought I was largely responsible because of the God-like power he attributes to me) is concerned. Which scheme has certificated you and do you want to buy me a drink in NI in a couple of weeks time?
-
With regard to bureaucracy and paperwork of TPC, the world is littered with bodies created by people such as aircraft maintenance personnel, who thought that paperwork and QMS was a waste of time such was their competence to do the job well without it.
-
Almost here, BAFE SP 205 happens to be the largest TPC scheme for fire risk assessment companies, and is operated by 3 CBs, but there are two other schemes as I am sure you are aware. Since all are UKAS accredited, they make the grade as far as the RQIA letter (for which that awfully nice Kelsall thought I was largely responsible because of the God-like power he attributes to me) is concerned. Which scheme has certificated you and do you want to buy me a drink in NI in a couple of weeks time?
Fraid Dot I think you drink too much and would be bad company now that I am nearly good living - during the week.
-
Actually, I drink in strict moderation. On medical advice, I am required to have a double whisky each evening. I am told not to take a single and not to take much more than the double other than special occasions, which I thought our meeting qualified as.
-
I offer the following in response to NT's posting. The difference is this:
NT has been assessed as a competent fire risk assessor by a recognised professional institution and appears on their register of fire risk assessors. This gives assurance to the Responsible person / Dutyholder etc that he as an individual has been assessed against published competence criteria. The fire risk assessor registers list competent Individuals.
Whereas BAFE SP205, Warrington and IFC schemes cover companies , not individuals, and these schemes are further each accredited by UKAS. These schemes all differ in detail but include reviews of the company's quality management system in addition to making provision to ensure the staff carrying out assessment are competent, that all assessments are signed off by registered authorised persons and that other elements of a QMS system, including CPD, records and document control are in place. SP205 is offered by three Certification Bodies and allows each company to declare its own competence standards for the assessors it employs, though recommends that all should be on one of the person registers. Periodic audits are carried out to ensure that member companies are maintaining these requirements; during these audits a selection of risk assessors are selected for review, including desk top assessment and accompanying them on an assessment. When I last checked the number of assessors audited under SP205 was linked to the square root plus 1, so if you are a one man band with three associates two assessors would be assessed, if you have 100 assessors 10 of them would be checked. Under the Warrington scheme all are checked. From speaking to friends, it appears that geography is the prime consideration so far in selecting which assessors will be checked by the SP205 Certification Bodies.
Hope this helps NT - and as for alcohol a whisky is ok but a pint of bitter is a drink.
-
With regard to bureaucracy and paperwork of TPC, the world is littered with bodies created by people such as aircraft maintenance personnel, who thought that paperwork and QMS was a waste of time such was their competence to do the job well without it.
Dear old Colin. In your enthusiasm (which I admire even when it is misdirected) you appear to be suggesting that TPC and QMS are one and the same and make persons more competent. QMS does make it more likely that incompetent staff will be found out and trained and is essential for any business especially with employees. On the other hand TPC is a means by which you can demonstrate your competence, it does not in itself make your staff competent. Your example gives the impression that you cannot be competent without it.
-
Colin, I accept that your view of my comment may be distasteful however I would remain behind the comment until proved otherwise.
I agree that the tragic loss of life at Rosepark should never have happened and should be a catalyst for change for the care and wider fire safety sectors.
I don't distinguish between Holyrood and Westminster having had lunch with many MSP's including the First Minister on many occasions. Politicians more often than not table motions as a result of lobbying, it exists and in fact many people make a living out of it. People are paid to lobby MSP's etc by organisations who seek a financial gain - to think that this doesn't exist and could not be the case in this instance is na?ve. It would be an awesome world we lived in if everyone made decisions for the good of the people and not their own gain. I would sign up to that!
I am cynical in the use of TPC's as many use these schemes as a lazy way of marketing, securing business and increasing prices by those that are part of them.
If you are saying Colin that the use of TPC's will only increase competency of FRA providers and not increase prices for the end user and encourage the small business end of the profession to become more engaged by a cost effective, accessible system, then there is a benefit to all whom the TPC is intended to serve, otherwise the system is flawed.
-
Big Al, I am so glad to see you are a convert. It hardly seems two years since you sat at a meeting and asked what QMS meant. And now you even teach it to people here. However, you miss a point, namely that QMS does not so much affect the competence of assessors but the quality of their deliverables. That is not the same thing. Having attended many TPC audits under the various schemes, either as the auditor or on behalf of UKAS, I have witnessed many many competent persons' deliverables improved by the findings of a third party audit.
GB, you seem to ignore the relevance of the MSP having Rosepark in his constituency and the lack of closure for many relatives of the deceased. You also ignore the fact that lobbying can have the purpose of making the world a better place, rather than making pots of money selling FRAs.
-
Colin, you may indeed be correct in what I am unaware of, as that list of things is very long!
I have modified my initial reply to your last post - perhaps one day I will also have one of those meetings with you over a drop of the amber nectar where I would be able to share information with you which may shed a different light in respect to the reasons for my suggestion of lobbying for a competitive edge rather than increasing the competency of the profession.
My initial issue is not one of increasing competency for the good of all stakeholders, it is making sure that any move within the industry is accessible to all with the objective of increasing safety and well being rather than to simply eliminate competition by bureaucratic means.
I once again allude to my earlier point in that a more robust CPD system and availability must precede any movement to restrict trade and competition under the guise of competency.
-
Having attended many TPC audits under the various schemes, either as the auditor or on behalf of UKAS, I have witnessed many many competent persons' deliverables improved by the findings of a third party audit.
I believe you trained the SP205 CBs in fire risk assessment as well Colin. I know you too well and respect your motives too much to suggest there might be vested interests at stake here! For any lesser soul I might well be drawn to such a conclusion! ;)
Seriously if you are auditing SP205 please let me know by PM which of the CBs you audit for, as this might well tip the scales. One of my concerns from the outset was that I wished to be audited by a competent fire risk assessor turned auditor, not by a QMS auditor with a little training in fire risk assessment. You know the rest.
-
Big Al, you can have faith in any of the BAFE SP 205 CBs, as none of their auditors are purely QMS guys with little training in fire risk assessment. If you require further information, give me a ring, as I type enough all day and don't want the bother of trying to explain all to you in a PM.
-
GB, I find your arguments compelling, and will be writing to the Department of Transport demanding that they stop this stupid driving licence nonsense. It is a clear restriction on people's personal freedom. I once new a young tearaway who always told people he could drive (and frequently did) but added the rider, "I don't have a licence like". And look at these people having accidents when they do have licences. After that, I will be writing to the HSE demanding that anyone should be allowed to work on gas appliances. So long as they think they are competent that should be fine. No more sheckles in the pockets of Gas Safe after that.
I see a whole new vista opening up after that. Disband UKAS, as they are a UK monopoly. (and why is there only ONE monopolies and mergers commission if they are so against monopolies?) Why should accredited CBs have any preference. I could get my ISO 9001 from a whole lot of unaccredited CBs, to whom you just pay your money send off your quality manual and you get certification. None of this red tape visits to my premises checking files and such like beaurocracy.
And when Davey takes us out of Europe, we can get rid of the CPR. Why should manufacturers have construction products tested at huge expense by a Notified Body, just so you and Mrs GB can be safe at home. All they are doing is costing you money for more expensive products when you go down to Wicks to build a playroom for the wee GBs.
Yep, the Sheriff got it wrong. Anyone should have been allowed to carry out the FRA for Rosepark. I will be contacting the IFE and the FIA in the morning, advising them to withdraw their current moral support for this motion at Holyrood, and its restriction to trade. In fact, I will demand that the IFE register immediately the 50% or so of applicants who failed to be registered. (Statistical fact.)
Then I will wake up and smell the coffee.
-
As you will obviously agree using your own analogy that the DoT will verify that having a drivers licence ensures that no-one speeds or drives carelessy or are killed by drunk drivers!
I take heart that a varying opinion from people that post on this forum is welcomed and that dialogue is encouraged so that diverse opinions are merged to find new and better ways of doing things in our industry.
Heaven forbid that if anyone disagrees with us we should try and belittle the person rather than form a constructive conversation and build a better world!
Now I am smelling the coffee!!
-
Well, I hope it is Costa, as they use competent fire risk assessors.
-
I have just watched this and it appears nothing is changing in the near future.
-
Not a bad outcome. The regulatory review group is to be instructed to consider the competence of fire risk assessors.
-
I take heart that a varying opinion from people that post on this forum is welcomed and that dialogue is encouraged so that diverse opinions are merged to find new and better ways of doing things in our industry.
Heaven forbid that if anyone disagrees with us we should try and belittle the person rather than form a constructive conversation and build a better world!
Now I am smelling the coffee!!
Well said GB that is exactly what this forum is all about. Debate helps us all to explore and understand issues that otherwise nobody dare challenge. How I remember the 1980s in Derbyshire under a very left wing authority led by one Councillor Bookbinder. We were force fed equal opportunities, not allowed to question the party line, insulted, belittled and even disciplined for asking sensible and valid questions in a fair and respectful manner on a training course! Not that it stopped us but it only served to alienate those of us who were keen to understand the underlying issues.
In respect of TPC (which I believe applied correctly is a Very Good thing) it is clearly not taking off as quickly many had hoped. I am really interested in knowing why, what is stopping people, is the system right or does it need changing - and I hope discussing it here will assist people to understand it from all angles strengths and weaknesses. I personally think its all about Human Nature, why jump through a hoop if no -one is telling you to and none of your customers are really interested whether you do or not. Pride is clearly not enough for most of us. I expect if we were hungry for work and there was a demand by customers for TPC we would all jump straight on board.
I think the IFSM and FIA take a worthy stand on this and respect them for it, but ultimately they are likely to lose both financially and possibly influence based on membership numbers if they shrink too much. If you are no longer a member then you are beyond the reach of education and persuasion. It is creating a vacuum, their stance would work perfectly well if accompanied by publicity and education by Government- but Scotland apart that is not happening at present. It might be as Wee B pointed out a slow burn process as happened with ASFP. Only time will tell, but clearly more could be done to accelerate the take off in terms of publicity and in particular making it a requirement for government and quasi government contract requirements.
-
It is like re run of an old movie. Change SP 205 to SP 203 and the words are virtually identical to what was said then. Before that identical sentiments were expressed regarding LPS 1014. I did roadshows with LPCB in promoting LPS 1014 and we heard all the same negativity. Happily, none of the CBs swerved a jot and the schemes are very successful indeed, but we still hear carps about.... I went to this job yesterday, installed by an SP 203 company, what a load of crap it was too etc etc (pause for yawn).. No doubt we will continue to hear cut and paste of this .... I went to this greengrocers shop yesterday and the FRA was done by an SP 205 company, what a load of crap it was too etc etc. I have been listening to this since FOC approval in the 1970s.
It makes me sad to work in such a downmarket profession, and wish I had stuck to vet medicine (especially when I see the vets bills for the cats), given that a vet can be struck off for failing to turn out for a sick goldfish that dies, but, contrary to what Almost Here believes, it never drives me to drink, but simply the need to drown myself in loud rock music. Todays cowboy fire risk assessors, who would not even be interested in looking at firenet, never mind having opinions on the issues we face, are yesterdays tin can service technicians, which BAFE SP 101/ST104 has done so much to clean up.
You have no idea how many times I have heard from non certificated firms that they never see LPS 1014 or SP 203 required in tender enquiries they receive----hmmm wonder why. Thinks for 3 milliseconds. Oh I know! Its because they don't receive tender enquiries from informed buyers who select their potential suppliers from the 1014/SP203 lists.
Wullie and I both tendered for FRAs for a number of hotels (not a huge number either, so could have been done by one man band as they wanted a single assessor to do them all). They only sought tenders from SP 205 companies. (Naturally, Wullie came second but he didn't hold a grudge.) Afterwards, they commented that, after studying the tenders and interviewing all the tenderers they would have been happy to appoint any of them (but clearly went for the one with the best looking MD). They attributed this to their pre selection using the SP 205 list and the quality of that scheme.
Worry not about the finances of the FIA, Big Al. I have an exact figure for the annual loss of revenue expected. I have charged more for a single fire risk assessment. Many of those dropped from the list are going through the certification process and will end up back on the list one day. It is more important that members in all the fields have the relevant certification, so offering the public reassurance about the use of FIA members, whether they service FEA, maintain fire alarm systems or carry out FRAs, than a few membership subs. Non members will no doubt continue to use the FIA website as a source of technical information, which those of us who go to the trouble of TPC and FIA membership pay for.
-
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_BusinessTeam/pm-v4n40-s4.pdf it looks like all they did was to debate it no decisions.
-
I, like many thousands of electrical contractors , am TP certified by a UKAS accredited auditor (NICEIC). They do not concern themselves with employees competence as they merely make annual checks of issued documentation and pop their head in to a few selected jobs. Every Tom Dick and Harry are now enrolled in one of these schemes simply because legislation pushed them that way. The scheme providers lined their pockets with membership fees. Even with all this supposed accredited competence it would appear that there has been a substantial increase in consumer unit fires and an accelerated descent in to appalling levels of workmanship.
Let's hope your TPC schemes do not suffer the same fate!
-
What legislation requires electrical contractors to be NICEIC?????????? Anyhow, I like the NICEIC personally.
-
I tuned in early as I didn't want to miss a thing. The majority of the Scottish MPs also didn't want to miss a single second of a drinks reception that evening so got up and walked out of the chamber. It kind of sums it up; the debate before was all about education and that is a vote winner so a pretty full house. 'Fire safety' and they all shoot out as fast as they can to get to the free bar.
Some wise words from the Conservative (I think) member of the house she was spot on with her comments and hit the nail on the head. There was also some good acknowledgement of the need to target specific sectors to get them to engage with fire safety. Perhaps they should start with the Scottish MPs by serving their drinks on beer mats with fire safety messages written all over them.
Fire risk assessments should have been done for all Scottish care homes, all of them should have been audited by the FRS and there is new guidance to follow, so really there shouldn?t be an issue. My feeling is that management of fire safety may have been a better motion to table; something along the lines of certification of fire risk management for care homes should be mandatory. As we all know a fire risk assessment when done well is just the starting point; what happens day in day out in the care home makes the difference. Would it be a burden on the care home operators? Yes! Would it be more effective than certificated risk assessors? Yes (At this stage it would be)
(I know nothing I will have made many mistakes in the text above and I fully expect to be ridiculed and put down for daring to have an opinion Colin is correct; great result, nothing needs to change. PS I am selling something so just ignore everything above it is just a commercial for something)
-
Colin,
Part P of the Building Regulations requires those carrying out electrical installation work in dwellings to be TPCd. Otherwise there is a fee for the inspection to be carried out by BC.
My point really is that electrical contractors are heavily bound by accreditation schemes yet as an inspecting engineer with no particular axe to grind, I have witnessed a marked drop in standards. The TPC providers are commercial organisations, including NICEIC, they are desperate not to lose annual fees and thus they will do all the can to retain even the most errant contractor. What's to say that won't happen to FR assessors who don't have a competency framework to begin with.