Is carrying out a FRA as a serving FRS auditor a conflict of interest?

[terry martin]

Mike
I shall be interested in Terry's response to your point.
Conqueror

How competent is anyone? Some are Very competent, some are ok and some are fly-by-night, as you would find everywhere unfortunately.
Being competent should be irrespective of them being a Ff. it neither qualifies them nor should it exclude them.

I know a lot of Ff's who have secondary employment and are fully qualified in their respective fields, such as Architects, Engineers, Mechanics, electricians, First Aid instructors etc etc.  Some own their own companies. I see this being no different.

[Mark50]

Terry I agree, I know people who have become qualified first aid instructors courtesy of their FRS and then gone on to provide training privately and make good money doing it.
So what is wrong with a well trained IO demystifying some of the hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo surrounding the RA process and making a few quid on the side?
So long as the IO is honest and ethical and gives the best advice and is not afraid to criticise or make recommendations to improve the premises that will cost his "client" money, there is nothing wrong with it.

[Martin Burford]

Mark 50
I am not aware that this topic involved IO's. The mail crux relates to FF's doing FRA's and are they fully competent. I was also intersted in the reply relating to FF's having other jobs [ electricians, mechanics etc] From my 30 years in the fire service I found that some used the fire service as there second job....and came to work on the fire station for a rest.. as there " first" job paid more!!
Terry you managed to answer by observation by saying nothing.....just spin!
The other contributor mentioning retained duties.. what a poor example.....as I thought fire fighting and associated duties was the job of a FF............................but perhaps i'm wrong in this new age of the fire service......Heaven help us all!!
Conqueror.

[terry martin]

Mark 50
 
Terry you managed to answer by observation by saying nothing.....just spin!

Conqueror.

Spin? That was not my intention Conqueror, just trying to demonstrate my point. I have no vested interest or agenda to get across here, just merely stating my personal views.

the original question was about all serving FS Personnel including I.O's, but the thread of comments about conflict of interest has moved us into the senario of non Fire Safety personnel.

 However, a direct answer to your question would be... Some have spent years in fire safety accruing experience and qualifications but have decided for whatever reason to go back to station life. others sadly are winging it.

with regards to shaunmckeever's comment. i think the point was of whole time Ff working for another brigade (maybe in their home town) as a retained Ff for extra income. this would not be an issue if i've read the policy right.

[inspectionofficer]

If you are competent and qualified as a non- fire safety employee of the Fire and Rescue Service ,I see no conflict of interest.If you then subsequently join the said department then someone else should audit your FRA.The problem could occur where it is not suitable or sufficient as this could reflect poorly on the FRS and involve possible legal proceedings against the individual who could then be disciplined -theoretically.Under the Human Rights Act,arguably,it should be difficult to stop people in the FRS from doing it unless,as is the case in the Fire Safety Department there is a direct conflict of interest.The main issue here is that some people are envious that public servants are selling their knowledge and market forces are the driver.No one complains when doctors book of a shift at the NHS hospital and walk over the road to the private one for another shift!

[Chris Houston]

No one complains when doctors book of a shift at the NHS hospital and walk over the road to the private one for another shift!

I disagree.

[shaunmckeever]

Conqueror

The main crux of the question was about secondary employment in a fire safety based field. I would consider retained duties to be fire safety based. The first FRS that Terry referred to prohibits ANY fire safety based employment. To me this includes retained firefighter duties either in or out of the area of the brigade. It is quite right that there must be no conflict of interest. Retained duties or fire risk assessments outside the area of the brigade concerned, in my view would be not be a conflict of interest. I believe the bigger issue must be the nature of the activity and what impact that might have on the firefighter to perform his duties. A firefighter must come to work refreshed and ready to do his job. A firefighter must not perform a non-fire brigade in his secondary employment where there is a significant likelihood that an injury might be incurred thus preventing them from doing their primary job. Performing retained duties might actually carry a greater risk of injury than carrying out fire risk assessments. This should be of greater concern to the FRS.

On a minor point, I don’t agree that the ‘first job’ is necessarily the most highly paid job. I believe many firefighters earn significantly more from their secondary employment than they do from their primary employment.

[Mike Buckley]

Shaun

Unless things have changed a lot retained duties are not fire safety based. The retained duties are to be called out to crew the fire appliances on call outs. Although there was a lot of disagreement about the wholetime firefighters carrying out retained duties (taking away jobs from the retained) in some areas it is almost the only way to get cover during the day. There is always the secondary arguement that stopping a wholetime fireifghter from crewing a retained appliance is rather like cutting your nose off to spite your face.

As far as I can see the main thread of this arguement is whether or not a trained Fire Safety Officer who is an active Inspecting Officer should be allowed to carry out fire risk assessments on the grounds of conflict of interest and if so where and under what circumstances.

The other thread is whether people who are employed in the fire service but not in an active fire safety role are competent to carry out Fire Risk Assessments.

[shaunmckeever]

Mike I guess it depends on your defintion of fire safety. To me extinguishing a fire is fire safety. It is a more physical way of implementing fire safety based duties but nevertheless it is fire safety. I understand that most fire officers perception of fire safety is about fire risk assessments, fire engineering strategies and the like but I think that is a narrow perception.

[val]

Local Authority EHO's do loads of private work within their field of expertise. Hasn't the principle already been broken by AI's who see no conflict of interest when acting as judge and jury for building proposals. Are doctors acting improperly when the offer an operation more speedily within the own private practise?

As long as FSO does not allow a conflict of interest to effect their advice then they should be OK. If they do, they should face disciplinaary proceedings.

[kurnal]

The comparison with the medical profession is not relevant. There is no enforcement role.

Following this line of logic you could argue that a soldier keeping the peace in one of the worlds trouble spots is entitled to go and fight for the enemy when off duty.  

I would not have a particular problem with fire safety officers doing a bit on the side if it is open and up front, if the fire authority is aware of it and they do not enforce standards in the premises that they cover as a private consultant. But most who do this work do it in a surrepticious and underhand way without the fire employers knowledge and so may be gamekeeper and poacher at the same time. This is wide open to corruption,  just like those notorious gangland cases in which police officers were given an inducement to turn a blind eye.
For this reason most enforcement officers are required by law to declare all inducements offered or hospitality received and record it officially in a document that is accountable and open to public scrutiny. I suggest that offering a service for a fee is exactly such an inducement that should be recorded.

So I would say, to do it right and protect yourself,  apply for permission, provide a list of your clients to the fire authority, declare vested interests,  keep your business and enforcement roles completely seperate- Never never tout for business whilst wearing your uniform or as part of your  enforcement duties.  

If theres one thing that does frustrate me its that poor advice given by a recruit firefighter on the trucks with no experience or knowlege of fire safety enforcement or standards has 100% more credibility with the public than good advice from an independent consultant with 35 years in the industry but wearing a suit.

[terry martin]

Kurnal,

I totally agree. only if there is complete transparency can it be done fairly and in the right way

one minor point, the comparison to the police 'turning a blind eye' is a bit severe,  what the police officer is doing will have a much more sever impact on the community

[Mike Buckley]

Shaun, I think we must agree to disagree, In my book fire fighting is a different bird from fire safety. Fire Safety is about stopping the fire starting in the first place, if it does start restricting its growth and development and making sure that no-one gets hurt. Fire fighting is the result of fire safety failing.

To put it in the medical field fire safety is like stopping smoking so you reduce the risk of lung cancer, fire fighting is the surgery chemo etc. to try and cure it when you've got it.

I would agree that fire fighting is a good way of learning how fires start and how they develop but it does not cover the prevention and precautions side.

I agree with kurnal there is a problem that because someone is a firefighter they do have more kudos irrespective of their knowledge.

[greg]

The real issue here is whether the advice given following the risk assessment is any different when given as a uniformed officer or as a suited consultant.

Assuming that the person is competent then the advice should be the same and justifiable.

The problem for the employer might be that, if as has been suggested,  the uniformed inspector does not audit his own Non-uniformed risk assessment, then is he able to perform his duties to the level as required by his FRS employer?

I would expect as a Fire Safety Manager that I would be able to send any of my officers out to inspect and audit any premises within my area. I would not expect to have to ascertain first wether they had already carried out the RA as a private individual and therefore barred themselves from this job.

That said it follows that they should be allowed to carry out FRA in areas outside the area of their uniformed employment.

[jokar]

Evidently, the assessor for the "Rose Bowl", hampshire County Cricket Ground, has signed the FRA as a serving officer of the local fire authority.  can this be possibly true?  There is a major conflict of interest here.