FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: colin todd on December 13, 2015, 05:53:55 PM
-
This report has now been issued. It is superbly written and easy to read. As the Act is very close to the FSO in England and Wales (and is more or less identical to the legislation in NI), it is worth a read by everyone. It can be downloaded at
http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00490043.pdf
A very important series of recommendations apply to the matter of fire risk assessors, namely as follows:
The Scottish Government should introduce a requirement for third party fire risk
assessors to be certificated or registered to ensure competency and to help
business receive a satisfactory and consistent service. This could in the first
instance focus on those offering assessments/assessors working in high risk
sectors.
A Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment should be completed to help
assess the impact of options, including certification, to ensure that all costs and
benefits are considered.
In the shorter term, the Scottish Government and SFRS should work to promote
the benefits of third party certification and how to select competent fire risk
assessors. This should include discussions with local authorities as to whether
they would be able to assist in promoting awareness of the Act.
-
As a counter to Colin's predictable enthusiasm for the report I wish to make the following observations:
1- The panel included a representative of BAFE but no other certification bodies, professional bodies or representatives of private industry were represented. The recommendation in respect of certification/ registration does not appear to me to be justified by the data or information in the findings of the report.
2- Of the 315 reported risk assessments under review only 29 (9.2%) were carried out by a third party assessor, and there is no data available to identify which of the 315 these were. I would argue that The imposition of certification / registration schemes , based on current figures, would impose an additional burden on all fire risk asessment businesses whilst only affecting less than 10% of fire risk assessments.
3- It is arguable whether SP205 guarantees a competent fire risk assessment. I have evidence that it does not and can give a number of specific examples. I believe that the effectiveness of the scheme is inversely proportional to the size of the member organisation.
4- The report itself identifies that there have been no successful prosecutions against fire risk assessors in Scotland for failing to identify deficiencies in fire safety in premises. These are powerful sanctions that have never been used. Where is the evidence of a problem?
I would suggest that the report is deficient in failing to provide evidence for such a major recommendation which would have a major impact on the industry but with an insignificant payback, based on current statistics.
-
To be honest I still think some form of 3rd party certification, or recognised register is the way forward so that the duty holders can at least have a bench mark for competence. Trust me when the time comes for an FRA to be questioned or challenged you need something more than your IFE cert and fire service college modules to show you are competent.
-
As a counter to Colin's predictable enthusiasm for the report I wish to make the following observations:
1- The panel included a representative of BAFE but no other certification bodies, professional bodies or representatives of private industry were represented. The recommendation in respect of certification/ registration does not appear to me to be justified by the data or information in the findings of the report.
2- Of the 315 reported risk assessments under review only 29 (9.2%) were carried out by a third party assessor, and there is no data available to identify which of the 315 these were. I would argue that The imposition of certification / registration schemes , based on current figures, would impose an additional burden on all fire risk asessment businesses whilst only affecting less than 10% of fire risk assessments.
3- It is arguable whether SP205 guarantees a competent fire risk assessment. I have evidence that it does not and can give a number of specific examples. I believe that the effectiveness of the scheme is inversely proportional to the size of the member organisation.
4- The report itself identifies that there have been no successful prosecutions against fire risk assessors in Scotland for failing to identify deficiencies in fire safety in premises. These are powerful sanctions that have never been used. Where is the evidence of a problem?
I would suggest that the report is deficient in failing to provide evidence for such a major recommendation which would have a major impact on the industry but with an insignificant payback, based on current statistics.
Absolutely agree. I can't imagine that any regulatory impact assessment would conclude that there's a safety-related case for mandatory 'approval', and in any case certification only (hopefully) reduces the probability of unsafe risk assessments being made - it doesn't eliminate it.
I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing - just that I cannot understand why any cost-conscious Government would mandate it, unless they had overwhelming evidence that it was a problem?
-
Absolutely agree. I can't imagine that any regulatory impact assessment would conclude that there's a safety-related case for mandatory 'approval', and in any case certification only (hopefully) reduces the probability of unsafe risk assessments being made - it doesn't eliminate it.
I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing - just that I cannot understand why any cost-conscious Government would mandate it, unless they had overwhelming evidence that it was a problem?
That's just the point, I think there is good evidence there is a problem, certainly in my experience.
-
There might be good evidence but it isn't in the report.
-
There is plenty of evidence wee B, so they did not need to burden the report with heaps of anecdotal evidence, since there is plenty around, of which they were made aware. This includes 14 dead bodies and the recommendations of a Scottish Sheriff (like an English judge but with the benefit of a better education and a more socialist and caring society) on how to prevent the same happening again. They pointed to the evidence of IFE applications-is that not evidence. They were aware of penalties including prison sentences (in England) imposed on those who had fire risk assessments carried out by third parties (which by the way continue to grow in number- the Court of Appeal rejecting an appeal against a suspended sentence only last week).
Wake up and smell the coffee, Big Al. England will catch on one day, but we are both probably too long in the tooth to ever see it.
-
Whilst I think 3rd party accredition is important. I don't think it will happen for two reasons. Firstly, the government don't want to burden businesses with more red tape and secondly I don't need a 3rd party accredited person to carry out my H&S risk assessments so why fire, what's the difference?
Having said that I have been seeing more and more notices from FRS questioning the competence of the person doing the FRA.
-
Firstly, the government don't want to burden businesses with more red tape
This is the Scottish government, not the UK one. Different political persuasion and different attitude to business, government and regulation.
-
As one of the gang of 4 who drafted the initial FIA proposal that developed into SP205 I smelled the coffee from the outset Colin but found the current blend not to my taste. It will never affect me as I am no longer practising in any case so I no longer have any particular axe to grind.
As you probably know I always rail against those who tell me what I should think and what is good for me. I want to hear an argument to support the case and will make up my own mind. That was the reason for my initial brief response to your wholehearted endorsement of the report. Others agree with me that at least one finding is not justified by the content of the report. I for one see this as a weakness of the report. Somehow they have arrived at a destination without travelling part of the route.
Third party certification is a good thing even if we disagree over the model. Whether it should be compulsory is a matter of argument. If the other part of the recommendation- in respect of education and publicity- were in place, together with the other missing link- robust enforcement especially in Scotland - then perhaps compulsion would be unnecessary.
-
I'm with Kurnal. The report lets itself down by failing to evidence its recommendations.
There's an interesting list of inadequate risk assessments at the back of the report. It might have helped if these showed who had done them (in house or consultant/ tpc consultant). Although you would need a bigger sample size.
-
I am a bit disappointed that there were not more stakeholders from service user bodies who would ultimately have to pay the significantly increased costs associated with 3rd party accredited assessors.
Only the FSB were represented with the rest being government bodies or those with a financial interest in 3rd party accreditation.
This approach will simply remove a great number of FRA assessors who are capable and competent to carry out FRA's within many suitable sectors due to the burden of the accreditation process and lead to further price increases to the end user by large 3rd party accredited companies who promote 3rd party as if they never in their life were non accredited! Unless of course they go and work for the big boys! ::)
-
Suppers when you said THE government, to which government were you referring? THE government requires sprinklers in new care homes and sheltered housing-it is only elsewhere in the UK that it is not required. THE government requires ARC connections from hospitals, res care and shopping centres. It is only elsewhere in the UK it is not required. THE government requires 60 minute doors to protected staircases (though I confess I am not sure why). THE government is unlikely to give a fig about academic RIAs, manipulated by civil servants in London with nothing better to do.
By the way, THE government probably knows that the term is not ACCREDITED but CERTIFICATED. The term accreditation is applied to UKAS schemes for certification bodies.
It is merely to be hoped that THE government, listens to the advice of stakeholders including, as someone pointed out, the Federation of Small Businesses, the rep of whom on the RRG seemed a sensible and intelligent sort of girl.
-
Well before you go down the route of third party accreditation, you could do worse than look at the debacle that exists in the electrical installation industry. UKAS registered accreditation bodies like NICEIC, NAPIT, ELECSA, Stromatolites and even BS falling over themselves to sign up any old dross that can leave condensate on a mirror.
I joined the NICEIC thirty years ago and wore the badge with pride. They had an austere and robust vetting system but that was thrown to the four winds when they became the voracious commercial enterprise that they are today. I pay my annual fee only because a small number of clients require membership of one of these money-grabbing bodies.
Now every Tom, Dick and Harry are members. Competence? Of little or no concern, top priority is ?450 plus vat please!
-
Third party certification is a good thing even if we disagree over the model. Whether it should be compulsory is a matter of argument. If the other part of the recommendation- in respect of education and publicity- were in place, together with the other missing link- robust enforcement especially in Scotland - then perhaps compulsion would be unnecessary.
Top post. Couldn't agree more.
I will struggle to get on any register as my employer will not release any FRAs or agree to site visits. Does this mean I won't be able to travel and work north of Hadrian's wall, but will be able to down souf?
I can see the value of 3rd party certification for freelance type consultancy staff/companies, (such as Colin's) where work is being sought from business, organisations and community groups. But I only work in house. I have proved competent to my employer and have to maintain my CPD to continue my role. I only work delivering fire safety on company property, so if they are happy to continue making sure I achieve certain aims to maintain competency, why would I need legislation to insist on a 3rd party assessment as well?
-
...to save people from dying in fire Davey, and to be sure that people are saved from dying in fire, Davey. As for going to Scotland, unless you go on a package coach tour, having spent so long in LFB, you would not find your way beyond Watford Gap.
When multiple lives were lost at Kings Cross, all those protesting about the RRG recommendation were silent in regard to the response, namely the most prescriptive legislation in my lifetime. Yet there is protestation, about a recommendation to prevent a re occurrence of the greatest loss of life in a fire post Kings Cross.
-
There is plenty of evidence wee B, so they did not need to burden the report with heaps of anecdotal evidence, since there is plenty around, of which they were made aware. This includes 14 dead bodies and the recommendations of a Scottish Sheriff (like an English judge but with the benefit of a better education and a more socialist and caring society) on how to prevent the same happening again. They pointed to the evidence of IFE applications-is that not evidence. They were aware of penalties including prison sentences (in England) imposed on those who had fire risk assessments carried out by third parties (which by the way continue to grow in number- the Court of Appeal rejecting an appeal against a suspended sentence only last week).
Wake up and smell the coffee, Big Al. England will catch on one day, but we are both probably too long in the tooth to ever see it.
What was this case Dot?
-
Dotty is referring to Rosepark NT, if you recall the FRA was found to be inadequate, but it was far from the only factor in that case.
-
Almost, to which case are you referring?
Big Al, I dont think Almost was talking about Rosepark. The info on that fire has reached NI by now, even if it had walked there. Further Big Al, the fact that there were other fire safety deficiencies has no bearing on the fact that, to remind you, it was held that, on the balance of probabilities, a s&s FRA could have prevented the fire (and hence all the deaths) or otherwise could have, by identification of the fire safety deficiencies, prevented some or even all of the deaths.
And people want evidence..... Sheesh!!!!
-
As for going to Scotland, unless you go on a package coach tour, having spent so long in LFB, you would not find your way beyond Watford Gap.
.........and therein lies the problem with assuming Colin. I never have been a mouthpiece for the LFB - quite the opposite - and I am in fact a Caledonphile who spends quite a lot of time up norf of the border, both working and exploring the wilderness on my hols.
I am not entirely sure why you are so angry with the LFB or Londoners (or me!), but it would be a huge mistake to consider me as a representative for either group. Plus, why the hell would I drive to Scotland when there's Virgin trains and BA?
Merry Christmas u grumpy bugger! :)
-
If we want to save people from dying in fires then robust enforcement is the key. Businesses need to know that they have a ponderous responsibility in mitigating fire risk. A good FRA by a competent assessor is obviously of enormous value as a starting point. But what I know of Rosepark and Kings Cross and many other fires, had simple, blatantly obvious precautions been taken, the disasters could have been avoided. The question of risk assessor competence is an important one but if enforcing authorities had the money and resources they should be able to flush out the lame ducks any way. Third party accreditation might end up being applied to a business that in turn could shelter poor quality individual risk assessors. My experience of TPA in the electrical installation industry leaves me less than confident that it would have any significant benefit in the fire safety industry.
Incidentally, recently I sat through a fire safety audit of a members club. Low risk category, I admit, but the inspector didn't get off his fat arse for the full two hours he was there.
-
Incidentally, recently I sat through a fire safety audit of a members club. Low risk category, I admit, but the inspector didn't get off his fat arse for the full two hours he was there.
My only question is why is the IO auditing a low risk members club anyway.
-
If the premises are low risk and fire safety mangement is good, there is no need for him to get off his chair. Thats the party line. If people are managing premises well, little need to go tapping the wood of fire doors and counting hinges. I iamgine he was assessing fsm during the two hours and quite right too.
-
How can you tell if a place is well managed unless you at least have a bit of a look round?
-
BY looking at the records, talking to the duty holder and viewing the FRA.
-
I agree with Phoenix what the RP thinks is happening is often far from the case. Mis perception is a widely recognised and common H&S issue. You can only measure what they say by at least some spot checking. I once had to serve a prohibition notice on a match due to take place that night at a top of the league football club. Records were impeccable, the maintenance manager and ops manager showed me contracts showing full maintenance and checks on the emergency lighting, the records were so good I thought I would do a very quick spot check. The outcome was a full day and only 6 working fittings were found in what was then a 45000 capacity stadium.
Similarly in the care sector incorrectly configured hold open devices and electronic locks are almost universal, and I estimate 75 % of emergency lighting installed in the last 2 decades in care homes and clubs is not configured to local sub circuit failure in my experience. You can't take their word for it, these people don't know what they don't know.
-
BY looking at the records, talking to the duty holder and viewing the FRA.
That is how I operated when I was an IO.
The first thing was a sit down with the RP to look at records and most importantly discuss fire safety management. If they find the FRA immediately and its not covered in dust, if they understand to an acceptable level the contents and basic management tools such a training and records - then it does give you a heads up on how the premises will me maintained and guide the level of your inspection.
The LFB's policy was if you are satisfied after the chat, then the detail of the inspection is down to the IO's judgement - in some cases, you only need to check one final exit, and that may well be the door you entered the premises. I think that's a reasonable approach for a low risk occupancy. Lets not forget that then (but not so much now I understand) I would have booked an appointment so the RP would know you were coming and why. They would have time to dust off the records, understand the policy/FRA - but most importantly - remove wedges and tidy up the place. So talking to management and where necessary staff, was often a better indicator than walking around the entire (tided up) building
-
BY looking at the records, talking to the duty holder and viewing the FRA.
That is how I operated when I was an IO
Me too.
That more or less what CFOA guidance says. It only wants the IO to check one safety critical area (staircase, dead end etc.) this to validate your findings form the FRA, if you find problems look at other areas, if not then complement the RP for the standard of biscuits and bid them farewell.
What I tended to do, was was base my walk around on the risk and size of the building. Let's face it it doesn't take long to walk the corridors in most buildings, if you do your homework before you go out, you know where the issues might be.
-
The working group who wrote the CFOA guidance to be fair often had little understanding of some of the technical aspects of fire safety installations be they alarms, bs 7273-4, and emergency lighting installations. Not to belittle the iOS etc on the committee but they have been brought up on a tradition of taking the installers certificates as gospel. We know that many installers and maintainers are ignorant of the standards are unaware of the fire safety implications, I used to find significant issues requiring attention on pretty well every job the first time I visited. Usually from a fairly superficial inspection and basic test.
-
Big Al, much as I have little time for CFOA and, indeed, the IOs of Davey's former employer (the cvs of whom we advise employment agencies not to even bother sending to us when we recruit-legal advice in respect of which is that this does not breach equality and diversity law, even though I have always assumed that Davey's chums are a race apart from the Ios of other FRS)), you do them a disservice. It is very arrogant to suggest that they are totally naive compared to consultants. The party line that Suppers and (much as I hate to admit it) Davey is bang on. Suppers is not stupid. I am sure he knew competent management when he saw it, and when he needed to look further.
-
i apologise for my arrogance. I was not intending to suggest that consultants are superior to IOS. I was an IO for very many years.
During the changeover I did have a number of friends on the CFOA East Midlands regional panel and on the National team at the time and received many briefings on their progress and the strategic and political drive behind it. This included the people who put the training package together and who delivered it on a regional basis. We discussed the new regime at length, but only on the basis of friends in the pub, this left me with an understanding of the system but if I am doing anybody a disservice I apologise for any offence. I know the IOs will follow their instructions as diligently as the system allows.
I also know that many fire alarm, emergency lighting certificates I see signed by electricians are deficient and such deficiencies are often missed without comment together with their associated installations which fall wide of the mark. And I expect any IO or consultant would probably spot those deficiencies if we look. But the system does not appear to allow for the IOs or a physical check if the RP and the certs look ok.
From the RP point of view the RP considers that by employing professional engineers they are using competent people, being diligent and and explains with sincere wide eyed honesty that all is as it should be. And is convinced of this and to be fair is being diligent to the extent of their control. For example some of the problems I refer to include Emergency lighting wired back to dedicated MCBs on the distribution board, this is so so common and rife in so many care homes. But this fact is rarely reported on the inspection and test certificate, indeed many sparkies are adamant that under BS7671 this is how it should be (despite the over riding recommendations of BS5266) And to be fair IOS have been visiting these places annually and reporting on them since the old registered homes act days but the problems still have not been reported. That worries me.
Another regular is those Fire Alarm systems with hold open devices and locks wired from the sounder circuits. Again this is never reported by the sparkies on inspection and test certificates in my experience. So without a check how will the IO know or the RP know anything is wrong?
I think if you don't look you don't find. That is my only point.
-
Cant help thinking that it shouldn't have taken two hours for this chat to have taken place. the idea is that you take a decco, suss the firm out and then move on ASAP to the next building.
You could spend hours in a building finding bits and pieces but much better to work your way down the list till you find the place that's going to kill people.
-
Brian, The job appears to be in NI. You need to remember that life goes more slowly there; time has less meaning. The nice friendly officer would have a nice chat about common friends, the family, where they are going on holiday next year. Then a nice cup of coffee. A wee look at the documentation. consideration of the FRA, there's lots to chat about. Then its lunch time, so off he went for lunch.
And what's wrong with all of that. Would you rather he adopted the bully boy tactics of certain English FRS, intimidating the duty holder, cross examining them like a prosecution barrister and going off with the threat, you will be hearing from us!
Which approach is better in gaining cooperation from duty holders?
-
In my LFB IO days, I preferred the Northern Ireland calm & pragmatic approach over the more jobsworth methods. I never had a complaint or argument with any punter, whilst I served with colleagues who used more confrontational methods who were sometimes threatened and assaulted by RPs. One even had long, heated, unnecessary and expensive clash with a fire consultant on the phone.
I have spent easily 2hrs plus in low & medium risk SME type premises on many occasions, where staff really haven't got a clue about FS, but are keen to do the right thing.
So what should I do??? Go back to the office, draw up a useless notice of deficiencies or perhaps an aggressive enforcement notice and send it to the RP? In certain circumstances, I am simply making hours of work for myself in following up the original visit and then extending the time period and then threatening "bully boy tactics"(or prosecution as we called them) - Or do I spend a quality 2 hours over a cup of Gold Blend and some milk chocolate Hob Nobs 'educating and informing' the willing member of the public to get exactly the same result? Its a no brainer!
I will even admit suggesting punters takes notes and then walking around whilst dictating what they might want to record in their FRA (aka , doing it for them!). At then end of the process I hope I have reduced the risk of harm as well as ensuring compliance - all in two hours - a slightly more efficient way of working than ignoring the risk or spending days on useless & unnecessary red tape just so I can present the case to my boss in the hope to be 'noticed'
It was also good practice for life in the real world at the end of my contract
-
Messy I agree - as an ex-SFSO within the LFB I've spent most of the night on a few occasions assisting RPs in remedying faults to ensure their business is fit to open for business the next day. On the few occasions its been necessary to take enforcement action this is only after spending some time with the RP explaining the options - never had a problem with them especially when you take time. Its a bit like Scotsmen - you get one miserable ('dour') personality albeit a fantastic tennis player and many people consider that they're all like that when most that I've met are quite charming and likeable chaps - many of them live in England too.
-
In my LFB IO days, I preferred the Northern Ireland calm & pragmatic approach over the more jobsworth methods. I never had a complaint or argument with any punter, whilst I served with colleagues who used more confrontational methods who were sometimes threatened and assaulted by RPs. One even had long, heated, unnecessary and expensive clash with a fire consultant on the phone.
I have spent easily 2hrs plus in low & medium risk SME type premises on many occasions, where staff really haven't got a clue about FS, but are keen to do the right thing.
So what should I do??? Go back to the office, draw up a useless notice of deficiencies or perhaps an aggressive enforcement notice and send it to the RP? In certain circumstances, I am simply making hours of work for myself in following up the original visit and then extending the time period and then threatening "bully boy tactics"(or prosecution as we called them) - Or do I spend a quality 2 hours over a cup of Gold Blend and some milk chocolate Hob Nobs 'educating and informing' the willing member of the public to get exactly the same result? Its a no brainer!
I will even admit suggesting punters takes notes and then walking around whilst dictating what they might want to record in their FRA (aka , doing it for them!). At then end of the process I hope I have reduced the risk of harm as well as ensuring compliance - all in two hours - a slightly more efficient way of working than ignoring the risk or spending days on useless & unnecessary red tape just so I can present the case to my boss in the hope to be 'noticed'
It was also good practice for life in the real world at the end of my contract
messy, I totally agree with your way of enforcement. However, this method only works with confidence and competence. It took me a a few years to see the light. As an IO you can have an argument everyday if you want one and some do. I have now jumped ship, and despair at some of the items IO try and enforce. The main issue I face is convincing my employer that IO aren't alway right, well accept for me ;D
-
Nice friendly well trained LFB I/Os.. yes of course I believe they exist, in the same way as I believe that the presents I will open the day after tomorrow will come from an Old Geezer in Lapland. I certainly don't suppose any of them will come from the second best FRS in the whole of .............. London, though they were kind enough to give us two consultancy jobs in 2015.
-
Nice friendly well trained LFB I/Os.. yes of course I believe they exist, in the same way as I believe that the presents I will open the day after tomorrow will come from an Old Geezer in Lapland. I certainly don't suppose any of them will come from the second best FRS in the whole of .............. London, though they were kind enough to give us two consultancy jobs in 2015.
....and a Merry Christmas to you Colin - full of Christmas cheer I see!!!! ::)
-
Always, Davey, always. Especially for my very good friends in the 2nd finest FRS in the whole of London.