NEW BAFE SP 203 certification body

[colin todd]

Kurnal, If you go privately, rather than NHS, you most certainly do check out your consultant, so your analogy is not perfect.

Thomas, a register is only part of the checks under SP 205, because the work will be checked by the CB, and there is none of this "would you like the work done in the scheme or outside" that Willie reported to us under the FRACS scheme.

Kurnal, as you are aware, a one man band sole trader IS a company and can get company certification under BAFE SP 205, so I repeat that company certifcation should be seen as the end game, and person certification is a component of that but not all of it.

[Midland Retty]

To practice as a doctor the minimum you must have is a General Medical Certificate. Simple as that. There is only one accepted qualification to demonstrate competency in their field as a minimum. Compare that to the fire safety industry.

What Tom is saying is there isn't just one measure of competency or accreditation out there for fire safety professionals. There are loads, and at best its bloomin' confusing for RPs. From what I understand and I am happy to be corrected the different CBs don't ask for the same competencies necessarily. In other words the accreditation schemes are not all the same, or offer equivalent levels of competency.

For elf and safety pros there is the NEBOSH Cert - almost universally accepted as the minimum bench mark qual for elf and safety practioners. I know this isn't an accreditation standard, its a qualification. So lets take the Gas Safe Register then.

The Gas Safe Register represents the single port of call for punters to select a competent gas engineer. The register vets engineers and will only 'rubber stamp them' when theyre satisfied they are competent. There is no risk to the punter, the hard work is done for them. If the engineer turns out to be a rogue trader the RP has exercised due dilligence.

So why can't the fire safety industry have a NEBOSH equivalent, why cant we have a Gas Safe style accreditation system instea.

[kurnal]

Disagree Midland about the NEBOSH general cert. Its very broad ranging but too basic a qualification for H&S professionals- if you want proof look at the fire sections!  IMO the diploma level is the minimum equivalent level from which we should compare skill levels for fire risk assessors.

The ABBE has already got their NVQ level 3 and soon the level 4 programs for fire risk assessors set up, there is the CFPA Europe diploma. But its still not enough and the FIA has just set up a working group to try and establish and evaluate routes of entry and progression within the profession for new blood, as the pool of retired fire officers is rapidly drying up,

[Tom Sutton]

5 COMPETENCIES OF FIRE RISK ASSESSORS

Commentary

It is essential that the person(s) carrying out the fire risk assessments or who are responsible for signing off fire risk assessments are competent. It is not the purpose of this scheme to assess the competence of the individuals involved. This is the responsibility of the certificated organizations.

5.3 The process by which the certificated organization ensures the competence of the certificated organizations fire risk assessors shall be audited by the TPCB.

Guidance Note for Clause 5.3
 
For Fire Risk Assessors evidence of competence should include:

1. Training records;
2. Listing on a recognised register of fire risk assessors; or completion of a recognised training course and evidence of successful application of knowledge such as an NVQ; and
3. Documented continual professional development;
4. TPCBs may set additional requirements

I have no problems with 1, 3 & 4, but part of 2, what is a recognised register what is the recognised training course and NVQ or are they the ones Kurnal spoke of?

[Midland Retty]

Disagree Midland about the NEBOSH general cert.

You totally miss my point Kurnal. I am certainly not saying that we should have a Nebosh Cert for fire safety - I'm saying that the NEBOSH cert in the health and safety world is the minimum employers and professionals look for to be classed as competent. Its become the default "benchmark" qualification.I know of no other quals that are accepted as THE MINIMUM for professional health and safety officers. Look back at what I was saying about doctors. There is one intial route for them to gain competency.

In the fire safety world we have Joe Bloggs offering one qualification or accreditation scheme over here, whilst Tom Cobley offers another over there, with no real appreciation of what they mean in the big wide world. Which one is best, how do they tie up? which one best demonstrates competency? Is it a mickey mouse qualification or is it respected in the industry?

And if we don't know the answer to those questions how on earth does your RP pick a competent fire risk assessor or consultant. What Im saying is simple - we need one series of qualifications  (with various levels of competencies catered for within it ) and one Certifiing body (like Gas Safe)

That way punters know where to go. I'll keep saying this til im blue in the face. There is nothing stopping me operating as "Midland Fire's Fire Safety Training" and offering my own "Diploma in Fire Safety"
Bit of a joke really isn't it?

[jokar]

I neede a builder so I looked for a local one on the 3rd party accrditation site the Federation of Master Builders.  The first person I spoke to was a plumber!
The point being is that a plumber can join if that person pays the money and is sector competent.  It did not help me and after speaking to the insurance company later they told me they would not accept anyone from FMB as it was a sham operation.
So, should any accreditation scheme be sector competent in that if you want to risk assess a care premises then you put your hat in that ring, (be thoughtful). If you want to do residential blocks then do so.  Some people may be good enogh to do all the different premises types but how do you choose if you are an RP of a chemical works, the cheapest, the most expensive, the one with the big advertising budget or the one who is local to you or the one who has sector competence.

[Tom Sutton]

The Gas Safe Register represents the single port of call for punters to select a competent gas engineer.
why cant we have a Gas Safe style accreditation system instead.

IMO this would require legislation and I think anything that requires legislation would be a non starter.

I would pin my hopes on that august body the FIRE RISK ASSESSMENT COMPETENCY COUNCIL, who have produced the Competency Criteria for Fire Risk Assessor which I believe is a landmark document and based on that document, produce a CoP for FR Assessors register providers. Also if the government could be persuaded to have a national database of all those approved FR Assessors registers, will be about as good as it gets until legislation catches up.

Being a little cheeky if only they could also produce a list of approved qualifications, training courses, NVQ,s etc that would assist new entrants into the Fire Safety profession to enable them to get onto an approved register.

[kurnal]

Being a little cheeky if only they could also produce a list of approved qualifications, training courses, NVQ,s etc that would assist new entrants into the Fire Safety profession to enable them to get onto an approved register.

The FIA risk assessment council is having a special meeting on 1 June to try and start putting something like that together. If anyone has any ideas please share them with us.

[Midland Retty]

The FIA risk assessment council is having a special meeting on 1 June to try and start putting something like that together. If anyone has any ideas please share them with us.

Sounds like a positive step in the right direction, and sort of follows what I was harking on about. A national set of competencies with a CoP to risk assessment providers is, as Tom says, perhaps the best we are going to get without some form of legislation.

If this leads to a "universal" system where any accreditation schemes, or qualifications, as a minimum, hit those national set of competencies, then happy days.