RR(FS)O - how many will actually comply

[kurnal]

geese have rights too and its time somebody looked after this  important minority group for they may not know how to look after their own best interests. The money thus collected could then be loaned to support the political parties.

[David Rooney]

Tony Blair is more of a dictator than some third world despots.

Once the national police computer has all our DNA and biometric details you will not be able to say boo to a goose before having £100 automatically deducted from your meagre salary.

Sorry, off topic.

John Spartan you are hereby fined 100 credits for mentioning our lord's name in vane.

So if you get caught saying "boo" does that mean you've been goosed ??

[AnthonyB]

FPA will go, forget it and embrace change, its what the stakeholders want.

What who wants ?... it seems to me that all the stakeholders want is shed the burden of responsibility (well most). As an FSO I was accused of being jack booted and throwing my weight around when I carried out visits to monitor compliance, now on the other side they pay me to tell them how little they can get away with. If I try to maintain a standard that I would have expected as an FSO, I am told that I am not being employed to spend their money, just to make things look good on paper. From either side the FRS FSO or the safety consultant it's a lose lose situation. I am seriously wondering if this job is worthwhile because I am sick of being the piggy in the middle between the FRS's and the companies I work for and wondering what the consequences will be if I walk away from somewhere knowing that there are problems, other than report it to the FSO there is nothing I can do and that will give me a good name in the business.... employ him.... he'll have the FRS down on you within the day. At least with the certificate there is something that both sides can use for ensuring that a premises complies, with RA... I hate to think what wil happen.

Totally with you there - it does seem to be a pointless excercise some days. I refuse to cut corners in reports - the requirement suits the risk, yet often it can be ignored - go back to a buliding 5 years in a row with no change, almost a matter of changing the date & re-issuing the orignal assessment & significant findings. Tenants who bury their head in the sand, FRS who aren't interested as it's not a house, CBRN/resilience issue or an RTA.......

What gets me are the people who say we can relax fire precuations as there have been virtually no workplace deaths for years so ther regs are not required - duh!!! - it's the fact that there have been stringent regs in place for 30 years that workplace deaths have declined so!

It's true that the home is an area of concern and should be resourced, but do we really want another Rose & Crown, Hendersons, Woolworth's, Summerland, Keighly Mill?

National Fire Service? Perhaps. or even Private Fire Service (GSL Falck anyone?). But another idea - the FRS aren't bothered about workplace fire safety, so why not remove it from them - have a Fire Safety Agency instead. After all Health & Safety has the HSE, you don't see the Police carrying out workplace safety inspections.....

[kurnal]

Anthony
I believe the average  FSO compares very favourably with the average factory inspector. In my experience I have found the HSE to be a waste of space- overly prescriptive, inexperienced and unhelpful. Try asking them for advice- you wont get them to offer any opinion or practical help. Just meaningless jargon.

The EHOs, who enforce in general commercial premises have a much more user friendly approach in terms of advice and helpfulness and aren't frightened to throw the book at someone when necessary.  They would be the better role model in my opinion, as would trading standards.

[Bluefire1]

National Fire Service? Perhaps. or even Private Fire Service (GSL Falck anyone?). But another idea - the FRS aren't bothered about workplace fire safety, so why not remove it from them - have a Fire Safety Agency instead. After all Health & Safety has the HSE, you don't see the Police carrying out workplace safety inspections.....

Having studied how Falck work in Denmark, there is some merit in a mixed private and LA service as they have there, but it is done with the Gov backing which we don't have in the UK. Many countries have independant fire inspection departments, so no reason why it can't work, the down side is of course that it will attack the fire service and that is something nobody wants. But if that is the way to go and RA is to work (which it can do) they need to be trained and have teeth not some lip service Quango.

Without Gov backing to the hilt, none of this new legislation will work..... when I was involved in the drafting of the DSEAR, I attended a meeting where a Ministers secretary said that the removal of the Petroleum Regs and combining them within DSEAR was as a result of there not having been an accident involving petrol since 1928... doh... when were the Pet Regs brought out.... and since licences were issued, no more Bristol incidents, am I alone in tying those two facts together or the reduction in deaths via FA, OSRA and finally the FPA.

The RR(FS)O has the same taint... no big life losses (or so they seem to think.....) so there is no need for prescritive legislation. The HSE are grossly overworked and can never acheive an enforcement inspection level that the FRS does and we can see how H&S standards are today, watering down standards as I said before can only lead to a return to the days of Hendersons, Eastwood Mill, Woolworths etc.

[steve walker]

We can only hope so.

The only point of having regional police forces and fire brigades is so that central government can spread the blame when things are not going so well.

I agree with you wee brian. The last dispute showed the nonsense of the FBU negociating with the "employers" only for the real employers (the government) to step in at the last moment to scupper the deal. We all know who the real employer is.

[kurnal]

I am seriously wondering if this job is worthwhile because I am sick of being the piggy in the middle between the FRS's and the companies I work for and wondering what the consequences will be if I walk away from somewhere knowing that there are problems, other than report it to the FSO there is nothing I can do and that will give me a good name in the business.... employ him.... he'll have the FRS down on you within the day.

An interesting argument- I dont think the consultant should ever report their client to the enforcing authority. If the Authority have not visited and taken enforcement through their own vigilance why should I do their job for them? The client pays me for my advice and service, I offer my best advice, guidance and persuasion. But then I walk away and take my fee- in extreme cases I may clearly set out my concerns in writing, pointing out the possible consequences of a fire or enforcement visit. But compliance is their responsibility and choice. My duty of care does not extend to instigating enforcement action. Or have I got it wrong?

[wee brian]

MMM

I think you could possibly be liable but only a little bit.

On construction sites, if a professional ignores a dangerous practice then he can be liable for prosecution.

I doubt this would be an issue for a fire consultant unless it was something really nasty. perhaps knowing that all the exits from a premiership football club were locked during a game - and then a few hundred fans bite the dust. They will nick everybody in sight.

[Reg]

But surely if the consultant has identified the issue, informed his client of the possible outcomes and highlighted the statutory liabilities he has done all within his power.  Once he has walked away it is down to the responsible person to take the appropriate action.  As a IO I would not go after the consultant unless the issue was not identified when it was reasonable to do so or the advice given was flawed.  In the worst case scenario, the consultant has the defence of due dilligence.

[Bluefire1]

My duty of care does not extend to instigating enforcement action. Or have I got it wrong?

I agree with what you are saying and will agree that in most cases having identified a problem and given the client advice then you have discharged your duty of responsibility. But take the case... you are given the job of preparing a RA report for the owner of a premises and you turn up to find it is a sweatshop. The numbers are well in excess and the MoE is locked. The employer doesn't give a toss even after you tell him and give him a written report, they are happy to say, they have your RA and the problem will be attended to.. you know as well as I do that it will not be rectified. Do you walk away and say you have done your job as the consultant or report to the FRS so that a Section 10 can be taken out.

Having seen first hand at the China Lane incident what can happen, that senario gives me the creeps.

[kurnal]

Bluefire
The bit that doesn't stack up is that if the employer has called me in off his own back then he must care to some extent. If he has called me in following contact with the fire service then they should have taken action if its as bad as you say.

If he is so foolish as to pay for my advice, receive written confirmation of the level of risk and still do nothing about it than that is his problem- and his risk- and  not mine.
I would feel I had failed in persuading him to reduce the level of risk but I would not report him.
Perhaps its a bit  like fire service managers  who dont report their drivers to the police when they fail to  stop and check before passing a red light.
Or the insurance company who observe high hazard levels during their inspections?

[Bluefire1]

Kurnal

I understand what you are saying and seeing where you are I'm not sure what dealings you have had with multi-occ ex-mills. My upbringing was the back streets of Manchester City Centre and areas like Bolton and Oldham. A lot of these sweat-shop owners will ask for things to be done so they have the paperwork to be checked at the appropriate time hoping to save any hassle and to be viewed from some 1st floor office rather than in the 4th floor sweatshop. To use the old cliche.. if I had got a pound for every time I was told "here is my paperwork - all in order", I would have retired a lot early and a lot richer. I always found it amazing how their grapevine worked.. as soon as an FSO or EHO or even TSO came near you could hear the padlocks coming off or the dangerous chemicals or dodgey labels being locked out of sight.

This is one of the downs I have previously mentioned.. if the RR(FS)O does result in paper checks only, then the meat of the issue will be missed. Some cowboy consultant will give them a report saying all is well and unless the FSO has the mandate to inspect, these things will go unchecked until something happens. To some extent any rants and raves on here are falling on ears that know the problems and on people who are responsible in their duties either FRS or private, but I know out there in the real world, there are some who will sign anything if it means money in their pockets.

[kurnal]

Bluefire
I do see where you are coming from and my first job was working in a cotton mill on a dodgy machine which had the guard removed due to a snatching clutch- it did sprain my wrist once when I got caught up in a hank of cotton. And you're right- as soon as the factory inspector knocked on the door the machine was isolated and covered in a sheet time and time again.

And we agree on the importance of proper, robust enforcement. When WE mean robust we mean a thorough  examination of the workplace or an aspect of it. When the ODPM mean robust they mean that the inspector will not look for problems but when someone dies in a fire the law will come down on the responsible person like a ton of bricks. From our point of view thats a life too late.

But the cutbacks and changes in the enforcement of fire safety and the reduction in dedicated FSOs makes me determined not to fill the gap by working as their safety net at my clients expense.

[jokar]

Doesn't exeperience make us mean spirited.  Let us not tar all with the same brush, having sat on both sides of the fence and now sitting on the spike I believe that I understand a number of viewpoints.  Firstly, the RR(FS)O is almost a H&S document where FRS and others could just wait until the happening and then enforce as a HSE officer does.  The difficulty with that is that someone could be dead by then.  Alternatively, they use the inspecting powers from the Order and from the National Framework document and enforce by audit.  The difficulty with this is, not enough FSO's and too many premises.  Therefore a risk approach has to be made and some premises will be missed.  But, and it is a big but FSO's will inspect and enforce, maybe they will not always get it right but they will be out there and attempt to make a difference.

The Responsible Person has the duty, but maybe no knowledege.  Still, they can look afetr their workforce and others but hey may choose to do this with the assistance of a competent consultant.  The consultant role, other than to make money, is to assist the RP to look afetr the workforce and others by bringing to the attention of the RP the rights and wrongs of the workplace.  Recommend, communicate findings and work on behalf but, you can not make them do what they do not want or consider.  The role of all parties is to get risk to the as low as reasonably practicable bit as defined by Edwards versus the National Coal Board.  However, cost, time trouble and inconvenience will always play a pert and unscrupulous individuals will always be ther and push the boundaries to the limit.  That, is where the Judiciary step in, the real enforcers.  The only thing is, all parties having done their respective jobs within their respective roles, it could take multiple deaths of innocent people to bring the real price to the attention of everyone and then perhaps a scapegoat will be looked for.  Having said all that let us consider the positive and believe that the HASAW Act has made us all safer and that RR(FS)O could do the same.

[AnthonyB]

There is a great difference between legal requirement & moral requirement. You may feel morally obliged to act further on an issue of great risk, even thought you have no obligation to do so & this is where the dilema can occur.
Fortunately the poor workplaces I inspect are not my clients, their landlord is, so in rare & extreme cases resorting to enforcement presents no problems - I'm protecting the people and also the client (bad fire safety usually goes hand in hand with a greater risk of fire occuring and a loss of income for the landlord as their investment goes up in smoke). My only dilema is that the FRS are reluctant to act due to resource & political constraints (not the I/Os fault)