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

[CivvyFSO]

With regards auditing my own RA on a station, if I am missing things on the RA, then I would miss the same thing at the audit stage, and if that is the case then I am not a very competent FSO so clearly shouldn't be auditing anyone elses RA never mind doing them. The conflict of interest only comes into it if I am doing a half ar*ed job of the RA, and claiming it is satisfactory during the audit. Or if the audit showed poor compliance that no action was taken over. It all depends on how much pride you take your job.

[nearlythere]

Messy,
By the way some Fire Authorities are now going down the peer review route to audit the assessments carried out in their own premises.

Sounds more like a job justification thing - carrying out meaningless duplications to keep people in a position.

[greg]

Civvy FSO, I disagree, the conflict of interest comes about if you are doing RA in your Service area and then are unable to carry out the audit required by your service employer on the same premises (because that would be un-ethical). In fact to call it a conflict of interest is probably incorrect, it is probablymore a breach of contract since through your own actions you have made yourself unavailable to do the work that you are contracted to do.

[CivvyFSO]

I was talking in particular about doing a risk assessment on the fire station that I work at and then auditing it. I agree it would be unethical to do RA's for businesses in my own area, and would also be uncomfortable doing them anywhere else.

But... Ignoring ethical issues, FRS policies and whether or not I personally would take on a RA for a local business:- (Just trying to make a point here...) So long as I am competent at doing risk assessments and competent at auditing RA's, why would I not be capable of auditing an RA I had done? The only conflict arises if despite being competent at auditing RA's, I do a bad job of actually completing one, then audit it and ignore how bad it is. The possibility of that happening makes it a conflict of interest, but as mentioned before, so long as I do a proper job of both the RA and the Audit then where is the crime?

[stevew]

Fire authorities should concentrate on improving the standard of FSO's in their role as auditors.  Too often I see deficiencies notices with obscure comments that do not under any circumstances warrant consideration within any FRA.  
Examples: RA to show
Type of paint used on walls
Type of furnishings used
Risk of gas cooker in a kitchen

Findings - yes - Significant?

Whether we like it or not responsible persons still pick up on comments made by a FSO no matter the basis for the comment.

Fire authorities - sort your own house out first with better training and monitoring of staff.  The word consistency comes to mind.
We then may start to convince those responsible for FRA that they have a duty to set, manage , monitor and maintain.    

Good to see a number of FA's offering better advice on where to look for assistance.

[CivvyFSO]

Examples: RA to show
Type of paint used on walls
Type of furnishings used
Risk of gas cooker in a kitchen

Findings - yes - Significant?

Sometimes they would be yes.

Paint: Possibly not, but look up Lewisham Housing fire 2/1/1991/ Layers of solvent based paint on walls is suspected to have blistered off, then acted as an accelerant. (But I personally would never expect mention of it.)
Furnishings: Do they meet BS and the correct grade for the purpose, i.e. Licensed premises. Mentioning this in the RA is often justifying a lower risk due to the equipment meeting set specifications.
Gas cooker: Quite often  the best ignition source in a building. I would expect combustibles to be kept away from this area, and with that being a preventive measure, I would expect to see mention in the RA. Also, anything in place where a cook would know to turn the cooker off in the event of evacuation? The last thing FRS need when they attend is a second fire in the kitchen because the cook never turned the chip pan off...



Don't forget the whole point of a risk assessment is also showing where your risks are low. So furniture meeting BS, water based paint, a well managed kitchen with good procedures, are all things that can easiliy be included in a risk assessment to show that risks ARE as low as reasonably practicable.

[stevew]

In reply to CivvyFSO

I disagree, there is no requirement to show the low risks within a fire risk assessment .  Good idea maybe, but picked up on a deficiencies notice generally unnecessary.  
Do not lose sight of the emphasis on significant.  What is wrong with the responsible person confirming good practice in some other way?  

What about those who do not have to record the risk assessment?  

One of the principle changes within the new regulations was for FA's to audit.  It is for this reason that I feel FA's should give better training and guidance to staff.  

The competent risk assessor can find themselves squeezed between the c**boys and the inadequately trained FSO.
I am not tarring all with the same brush, however if I have learnt anything since moving from enforcer to consultant 7 years ago it is that the whole approach is significantly different, with nowhere to hide.  Perhaps part of the training should be for IO's to be given an  opportunity to better understand the consultants role.

Interesting that CivvyFSO jumped to  'worse case' scenario examples.  I accept that in certain premises such information would be significant however I can assure you  that my examples are bordering on the 'jobs worth'

[firelawmac]

I Quote...(''One of the principle changes within the new regulations was for FA's to audit.  It is for this reason that I feel FA's should give better training and guidance to staff.'')



Sorry, not sure what 'regulations' you are refering to!!!! I assume you mean the RR(FS)O 2005? If so again accept my appologies as i cannot find anywhere within the Statutory Instrument that says that Fire and Rescue Authorities have a duty to Audit!! Only to enforce the requirements of the order!

May sound a bit picky but lets ensure if putting forward and argument we actually know what the legislation actually says.

It does say that FRA's should do this with regard for any guidance issued by the secretary of state, this I believe is where through the CFOA policy directives, as well as through IRMP note 4 they are asked to consider risk based audit. ( by rights they can enforce however they see fit in line with the local IRMP)

Please correct me if I am wrong!

[stevew]

I  am very clear what the Statutory Instrument says. The point I am trying to make when I refer to audit is the way FA's no longer set the standards (FP Act).  I would be interested in knowing how else a FA can enforce without carrying out a risk based audit.

Too often we get bogged down with what the SI says rather than the practicalities of enforcement which is the where I am coming from.  

To  pursue the discussion I would  welcome comments on my argument regarding the level of training given to those IO's in the front line.  I sense that maybe the enforcement of the RRO is not as high on the list of some fire authorities agenda as the public would expect.    

I apologise if I am wrong firelawmac but you sound like a fire officer hiding behind legislation.  

I can only repeat that perhaps it would be to the benefit of all concerned if there were more opportunities for consultants and FA's  to meet in order to exchange views.

[firelawmac]

I would be interested in knowing how else a FA can enforce without carrying out a risk based audit.

I apologise if I am wrong firelawmac but you sound like a fire officer hiding behind legislation.

stevew

I can appreciate where you are coming from! However surely the best way to 'Enforce the law' would be to concentrate on ensuring that any premises that comes within the scope of the RR(FS)O that has a fire, no matter how serious, is 'visited/audited as soon after the fire as possible! After all, if a fire has occured that requires an attendance from the FRS the fire authority would have reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.

Therefore the inspector would be enforcing the law by giving the responsible person the opportunity to show that the measures in place were 'reasonably practicable', as a defence.

Regardless of whether the tests are met and the information laid or not, the fact that this responsible person has firstly been investigated after a fire, and more importantly cautioned and interviewed under PACE, will spread like wild fire (pardon the pun) through the local community, sending the message that times have changed!! and also that they should be in no doubt that they WILL be held accountable, surely this has more mileage for ensuring compliance than giving them up to 5 weeks notice of an audit!

And in answer to your comment about me being a fire officer hiding behind legislation, that is not the case (your apology gracefully accepted) although i do have dealings with a number of enforcing authorities some of which are indeed fire and rescue authorities.

The issue about fire officers and consultants meeting to exchange views then i must agree! It would certainly be of help.

Fire officers carrying out these audits are apparently well trained at the Fire Service college 'Centre of Excellence'!!! however I personaly think the training isnt the problem, it is the inability of a few of these officers to be able to accept the change, and regardles of their personal views stick to laid down national protocol.

[CivvyFSO]

In reply to CivvyFSO

I disagree, there is no requirement to show the low risks within a fire risk assessment .  Good idea maybe, but picked up on a deficiencies notice generally unnecessary.

I was not fighting the case for any of the low risks to be put on a deficiencies notice, but they should still be included on the list of significant findings if they have been made low by implemented measures. The significant findings should include the preventative/protective measures taken already and measures that will be taken, and that information may be mentioned on a deficiencies notice as an example of information to be recorded. (Highly unlikely paint would be mentioned, so the case you are talking about does sound quite odd.)

With regards to the people who don't have to record the information, it is generally quite easy to see straight away whether any sort of risk assessment has taken place. (Normally the blank look you get when you ask them if they have done one gives it away!)

[Mike Buckley]

The idea that an inspection should only be carried out after a fire is the same as closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The problem is not trying to get the RP to take precautions seriously after a fire, it is trying to get the RP to do the work before the fire.

The attitude is too much we've never had a fire so why do we need to carry out the work? Just look at the attitude to sprinklers.

Relying on prosecution after a fire will only be kicking the man when he's down, he's learnt, its the rest who never think it will happen to them who need the inspection.

I agree with CivvyFSO significant findings must include what is good as well as what needs to be addressed and should include the low risks. If nothing else it gioves a reason as to why certain items have not been addressed, we knew about it but in our judgment it was more important to address this other issue.

At the end of the day I can create a perfectly safe factory that will never have a fire, I just fire the staff, remove all the contents, cut off all the services and then demolish it.

[kurnal]

Article 9(7) says that the responsible person must record the significant findings of the risk assessment including the measures that have been taken or will be taken in respect of basic fire precautions.

So you must set out the measures that are already in place and contributing to the fire safety standards of the premises. If you have an L1 alarm system and escape lighting to BS5266 you should say so. Whilst you dont need to say that you have painted the walls with emulsion a statement to the effect that the surface finishes of walls and ceilings are in accordance with  appropriate National guidance is the right thing to do.

On enforcement theres a place for making an example of someone ( hot strikes!!) because everybody sits up and takes notice, but it must be part of a balanced approach - to include risk based reinspections, targetted inspections, thematic inspections. None is any good in isolation. I dont think we have taken enough action in the past after a fire. And many that have been taken have fallen flat on their face because of poor procedures. I think brigades should do more of all types of enforcement visits.

[Tall Paul]

I feel that the discussion here has moved away from the subject of conflict of interest - which is a fascinating debate - to a bit of backbiting between consultants and inspectors.

As a highly trained, well versed and risk assessment proficient inspector I am not happy with some of the all encompassing comments that are being made.  I would not broad-brush any proffession with any comments that I might choose to make, and would appreciate the same curtesy extended in return.

On a personal level I agree with the matter of not being "owned" by my employer, but cannot marry up the matter of carrying out FRAs within the same authority boundary in which I serve as an enforcing officer.  Regardless of whether I only audit premises in which I have not carried out the FRA, I am likely to find myself auditing those carried out by colleagues on an increasingly frequent basis if this practice were to continue.  It then becomes a constant challenge to ensure that the standard that I impose is totally impartial - and not one that I would like to argue with a barrister for the defence should things become messy.

Paul

[terry martin]

well put paul, couldn't of put it better myself