Churches- written risk assessment or not

[kurnal]

I advised a local Church today that they should have a written risk assessment under the RRO as
1- the diocese employs more than 5 persons
2- the premises are licenced for marriage ceremonies ( I think?)

Was I right and would the answer be any different if it were a mosque or a quaker meeting house?

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

I would say you are right ......

"any premises which, by virtue of a licence......."

[jokar]

Correct that a FRA is needed on both counts.  However, the FRA only needs recording, there is no requirement in RR(FS)O for a written FRA.  In addition, the Order applies to "any premises" and therfore all places of worship are included are included.

[John Webb]

In the St Albans Diocese (Church of England) we have advised all churches to keep a written record of their FRA. This has been done on the basis of being the most efficient way of ensuring people think about what they do, to provide a record of what they have done and to assist future reassessments when required. Because the vast majority of churches have not carried out FRAs in the past, we have asked that every church (we have about 400 scattered over Herts and Beds) send copies of the FRAs to the Diocese so we can monitor how people are coping and identify any common problems. Churches, in their required 5-yearly inspections (the 'quinquennial survey'), will be asked if they have carried out their FRA.

As jokar says, the RR(FS)O applies to all places of worship and also to halls run by churches, mosques, societies and private individuals.

Re kernal's comments, the diocese may have more than 5 paid employees, and therefore Diocesan premises need a written FRA, but most local churches are run by a vicar or rector who has the 'freehold' of the 'living', as it is known. They count as self-employed for tax purposes and do not have a 'contract of employment' with the diocese, so I am told. But both HSE and insurers have recommended for some years that all volunteers at churches, whatever they do, are treated in the same way as 'paid staff'. Most churches have rather more than 5 volunteers by the time you add together sidesmen/women, cleaners, flower arrangers, choir members, churchwardens, bell ringers and tea-makers etc. so that's another good reason for putting it in writing.
With regard to being licensing for marriages I don't think that has any bearing on the matter - it's not to do with the 2003 Licensing Act regarding selling of alcohol and public entertainment which the RR(FS)O does mention. But of course any building licensed for marriages must be by definition a 'place of public assembly' which puts it fair and square under the new legislation.

One intriguing query for me is the status of 'stately homes' open to the public. If they are open to the public does that make them 'places of public assembly'? (I know the vast majority of these are well-protected anyway for the sake of the historic building.)

[Mr. P]

Glancing back through RR(FS)O, I thought it said 'paid or un-paid'.  That includes voluntary workers then?  Any place where the conduct of a business is carried on... stately homes make the list too.  They make/raise money to up-keep the place at least.

Significant finds must be recorded.  Many say 'a written record' and have mis-quoted, but are we straying from a layman's catch-phrase of 'written'?  To record, the easiest is written.  But don't forget, using IT and braille are also records.

[John Webb]

My local church has just received clear instructions from the Diocese that churches should always keep records in 'hard copy' and not rely on IT storage only. Every few years we ship off various full registers and other records to the Diocesan Archive, co-housed with the County Archive.
Curiously my church has few records from before 1930 - records prior to that date were stored in an archive in central London, in a basement of a building close to the Thames. In 1929 the Thames overflowed....
so central archives don't always work!

In Article 2 (Interpretation) of the RRO it says " 'employee' means a person who is or is treated as an employee for the purposes of the Health and Safety at Work Act...." so yes, volunteers are to be added when totalling the number of employees present.

[CJK]

Following on from Mr P, the requirement is not to record the actual risk assessment but as stated in article 9. (6) and (7) it is the significant findings of the risk assessment that are to be recorded together with any arrangements for preventative and protective measures, including planning, control, monitoring and review.
Under article 9. (6) a/b/c it does confirm that if there are five employees, or a licence under an enactment then the significant findings are to be recorded.
Just a quick one on the " five people employed", this does not just cover the place in question. For example, if a shop is part of a chain of 6 shops and the company employ one person in each shop there would still be a requirement for each shop to record the significant findings of the risk assessment, even though there would be only one person working in the shop in question.

Regards
CJK

[John Webb]

I'm personally inclined to recommend writing down the whole of any assessment that is done and place it on record. It may be best for those who then have to organise any necessary changes to have a summary (ie the 'significant findings') with the knowledge that if they have any queries they can go back to a source document if the assessor is unavailable for some reason. And at some point in the future when they have to update things because of building works, other changes or as part of a regular review the next person to do a FRA has a good basis from which to start which should help to minimise time and therefore costs.

[Chris Houston]

The RRO does not apply (because it does not come into force until next month).

[CJK]

The question was not does the RRO apply but, was the information correct and as stated in Kurnal's original question "under the RRO" this equates to post 1st October 2006.
Lets not be picky now!

CJK

[wee brian]

Lets face it  - you should have the FRA and the protective measures etc. in place on 1 October, so really we should be doing all this stuff now.

P.S. If churches do need a license under the Marriage Act (not sure that they do) then the significant findings etc will need to be recorded.

[John Webb]

Due to the late delivery of the Guides - the one on 'Outdoor Events and Venues' for example still has not been published as of two days ago - it is not going to be possible for many of us to comply completely by the 1st of October.  We have advised our churches to have in hand by then the management changes needed to implement the legislation, ie the appointment of "Responsible" and "Competent" persons and target dates for carrying out the FRA and considering any changes needed as a result of the FRA.
In addition many churches are listed buildings and for changes other than the most minor ones formal permission has to be sought to carry them out. This can add several months to the start of the works, although if anyone finds something nasty we can hasten the procedures; I hope that will not be needed!

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Surely to cover yourselves, you could have written action plans of any identified works that will be required?

If you can demonstrate that you have identified the significant findings and are acting on them, doesn't that show due diligence?

[kurnal]

Thanks for all your replies so far and it shows it is even more complicated than I thought.

From  my original question we  appear to have established and agreed that  that the Order applies whether persons are employed under a contract of employment or not- I knew that the status of many vicars was not straightforward employment. (And of course they only work on Sundays dont they?). But from your answers it seems that is not relevant.

Then the issue of the range of licences covered by the Order. Because I dont think - but I dont know - that Churches need to be licenced under the Marriages Act.  And then whilst  Article 42 is written and structured entirely around the licensing Act 2003 and its resopnsible authorites etc  the Order then goes on, in amendments to secondary legislation, to amend the Marriages Act. So I do take the term licence in the FSO 2005 to refer to such licences. Simple it isnt!

[John Webb]

I must admit I'd taken Section 42 of the RRO regarding "licensed premises" to be solely a reference to the Licensing Act 2003. But in view of the comments above I realise now it has been written for any sort of licencing which may take place of any sort of premises. CoE parish churches are, I think, automatically covered for marriages by reason of the legal position of the CoE, but all other religious buildings have to be licensed specifically, as do other locations for civil weddings.