Debate in Scottish parliament regarding TPC of fire risk assessors

[kurnal]

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.

[colin todd]

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.

[Tom Sutton]

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_BusinessTeam/pm-v4n40-s4.pdf it looks like all they did was to debate it no decisions.

[lyledunn]

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!

[colin todd]

What legislation requires electrical contractors to be NICEIC?  Anyhow, I like the NICEIC personally.

[Kelsall]

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)

[lyledunn]

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.