Meaning of fire-fighting in Article 13

[jokar]

In Article 13 of RR(FS)O, the term fire-fighting is used and the RP should take measures to facilitate this.  My understanding is that professional fire-fighters do fire-fighting and those who are trained as fire wardens may fight a fire if the circumstances and their training permits this.  A number of training providers are now stating that staff should be trained to fire fight which meets the terminology in the Article.  Am I missing something here?

[John Webb]

The Guides talk specifically about portable extinguishers (eg Large places of assembly,  p22) but then go on to say that in some premises there may also permanently installed firefighting equipment for the use of trained staff and firefighters "such as hosereels". It comments on the need for staff to be trained to use the equipment provided.

The Guides also comment that dry risers or automatically operated extinguishing systems may have been provided and need to be maintained.

So I take it that Article 13 requires a minimum of first-aid firefighting - eg extinguishers, and if your FRA says you need a works fire brigade because of the nature of the risks on your premises, then you have to provide one. In both cases staff need to be appropriately trained. Well, that's my thoughts anyway.

[PhilB]

The intention of article 13 is that the responsible person provides fire-fighting equipment appropriate to the risk. This includes fire extinguishers for use by persons nominated to use them.

Don't forget that there is now a new duty to mitigate the effects of fire. I cannot see how a responsible person can show due dilligence if he has not provided extinguishers and nominated and trained those who are required to use them.

This is one of the fundamental differences with the new law. Previously as long as employees could safely evacuate there was no requirement to attempt to fight a small fire....now there is a duty to fight fires if it will mitigate the effects.

[jokar]

As this is a cut and paste from the WPR, I have had allok at FPA Circular 28, the enforcers bible under that old piece of legislation.  It states:

   Employers (but not other persons) are required under paragraph (2) to take measures for fire-fighting in the workplace (e.g. the drawing up of a suitable emergency plan of action) where necessary for the purpose of safeguarding their employees in case of fire. Such measures as are taken will be tailored to the circumstances of the workplace. Employers shall nominate a sufficient number of their employees to implement those measures and ensure that they are adequately trained and equipped to carry out their responsibilities. This provision – as paragraph 33 below emphasises – should complement rather than replace fire authorities’ fire-fighting role. Nominated employees should be able to tackle a fire if it is safe to do so and they know how to do it safely. (They must not put themselves at risk to fight fire : the priority is their personal safety.)

Do we think that this is what should occur now.

[PhilB]

yes but now it is not just employers. The responsible person must ensure that where necessary equipment is provided and persons are nominated and trained to use it.

Under the old regime if an employers risk assessment determined that it was safer not to train his staff to use extinguishers and to evacuate there was nothing to stop him doing just that.

Now he has an absolute duty so far as is  reasonably practicable to mitigate the effects if a fire occurs rather than simply evacuate.

[Pip]

Yes, the expectation is that a small fire will be tackled by the occupier providing it is safe to do so etc etc.I think the rational must be that big fires start off small, and apparently 70% of fires are not known about by the FRS, because they have been put out by extinguishers.To do that of course, they need to be suitably trained.All personel should have a basic understanding, but only a limited few may need 'hands on training' if they are the ones who may be called upon to fight a fire.It is reasonable that a persons first go at putting out a fire should not be for real, hence the enhanced training for the chosen few-eg those who may encounter open flame in their workplace-cooks,science teachers etc.However it will always be only when safe to do so!

[Big A]

Isn't 'an absolute duty so far as is reasonably practicable' a mixture of terms?

[PhilB]

Isn't 'an absolute duty so far as is reasonably practicable' a mixture of terms?

Yes it is Al ...fair point..........................but the responsible person does have an absolute duty to take general fire precautions


"
8.—(1) The responsible person must—
(a) take such general fire precautions as will ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the
safety of any of his employees; and
(b) in relation to relevant persons who are not his employees, take such general fire
precautions as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case to ensure that
the premises are safe."

So he must, absolute duty, take general fire precautions. Mitigating the effects is included in definition of general fire precautions. The extent to which he takes them is qualified by reasonably practicable or reasonable in the circumstances of the case...depending on whetehr employees are involved.