Fatal Newquay Hotel Fire

[Mike Buckley]

Nice idea John and I can see the advantages. However I think it is probably a non starter, logisitically it would be a nightmare for the FRS.
a) How up to date is the FRA? Yes the requirement could be to review the FRA annually and send an updated copy in but how many would do it and how could the FRA deal with all the paper? Let's face it with the old Fire Certificate it was a requirement to inform the FRA when carrying out alterations, how many companies actually did?
b) A fire cert was required for a premise employing more than 21 people (roughly) a written FRA is needed for a company employing over 5. Remember the discussions as to whether a company employing 10 people over 5 premises needed a written FRA? Who will crosscheck the businesses with the FRAs received?
c) Who is going to check the FRA and then what will the FRS do about it? Will this be used as a cop out by the business? "I sent my FRA in and the FRS said nothing about it. They are the experts it must have been OK"
d) As c)

Either the FRS would drown in paper or it would need to divert a large amount of manpower to dealing with the paperwork and this would cut into the holy grail of home visits, not to mention training etc.

Yes I agree with fishy, on average a fire is a once in a lifetime experience for most people and how a fire starts, travels, the damage it does and the speed it moves are a closed book to most of the population (including HMG). Whereas if you have been in engineering for example you will have met or at least heard of someone who has trapped their hand in a machine.

I work in a small company and we have about 50 accident reports a year and 2 years ago a dust extractor caught fire, that was the biggest fire we ever had.

The aim of putting fire safety in the same scheme as health and safety sounded good but it was impractical.

[John Webb]

Mike,
The same thoughts about the logistics also crossed my mind, but I thought it was still worth floating to see what opinions would be expressed. Would it be easier on the FRS if it was just the "significant findings" that were sent to them?

Or does the FRS need to set (or be set) targets of random 'snap inspections' on a range of property types to encourage people to do what is expected of them in case they are one of those selected?

[jokar]

John, That is exactly what the Government have set out in IRMP Guidnace Note 4 and in the National Framework document that supports the Fire and Rescue Act 2004.  FRS have to have a risk based inspection programme that deals with high risk premises and this should include those premises where numbers of people gather either to sleep or resort.  The trouble is numbers of FSO's are busy inspecting offices and other commercila type premises such as special treatment centres and night cafes where the risk is considerably lower.

[Tom Sutton]

jokar using the guidance you quoted how many of the disasters in the last century would have required an audit. My view is all premises should be subject to an audit and the risk level should dictate the frequency. I know it will not happen because the cost cutting in FRS would not allow it.

[Mike Buckley]

John,

I agree the topic is worth floating, alhtough whether any of the ideas will be taken up is a different matter.

I don't think just sending the significant findings would help as the businesses that would send the findings are probably the ones who are doing a reasonable job. The ones that need to be caught are the ones who are not doing a FRA at all and how do we weed those away from the businesses who do do a FRA but believe they have no significant findings.

I would say that snap inspections could work but there needs to be a significant threat of being caught, especially now in the initial stages. It is just like drink driving, people will still do it if they think that they are not likely to get caught.

So what is needed is a massive blitz by FSOs who know and understand fire risk assessment and not just apply the old Fire Safety Act. I don't think the FRAs have the resources of trained personnel to do this. The other problem is it just needs a couple of idiots to discredit the whole process and we have seen from this forum FSOs like this are about.

Mike

[Big T]

I think it's grossly unfair to lump the whole of the RRO principal together and insist that it doesn't work because in our opinion the average joe has no idea how a fire starts and what the larger consequences are.

For the majority of companies out there the RRO has made fire safety the top of the agenda in the vast majority of board meetings. When has fire safety ever had that kind of exposure in business? When has a fire safety manager ever been invited into a board room PRIOR to a fire starting?

The reality is that if the RRO had not been in place this hotel WOULD have still burned to the ground.

If completed properly the Fire risk assessment is a fantastic document that highlights the obvious fire hazards and allows business to set reasonable times for fixing them.

The health and safety at work act which uses the risk assessed approach has had some truly significant hicups where people have died as a result of poor risk assessment. You won't see the HSE revoking the whole RA process and doing it themselves.

It's a sad fact but, whether we have Fire certificates, Risk assessments or some other process, major fires will occur in business forever.

Every single aspect of a buildings fire safety strategy could be perfect. The building could still burn down and people could still die. FRA or not. Fire Certificate or not, brigade snap inspection or not.

Incidentally SOME brigades are dealing with the RRO. Meeting with business and believe it or not providing advice and ensuring the Risk assessments are being completed.

[Tom Sutton]

For the majority of companies out there the RRO has made fire safety the top of the agenda in the vast majority of board meetings. When has fire safety ever had that kind of exposure in business? When has a fire safety manager ever been invited into a board room PRIOR to a fire starting?

BigT have you any evidence of this I would suspect in the majority of companies, quite the opposite, and fire safety would be way down the agenda if on at all. I can see it being on the agenda if they have been prompted in some way.

[Big T]

Every company was prompted. As soon as the first convictions under the new order were published, most companies started to employ people to deal with the issue.

Most companies are binning managers, not employing more. So for any company to offer the position of a fire safety manager or similar says that the board of a company are taking the RRO seriousy. If they wern't there wouldn't be any jobs in business for Fire safety managers / engineers. You only have to look at the employment websites and proffesional magazines to see that many companies are employing due to the RRO.

Look at the quantity of Fire safety firms that exist. Someone is paying for them. Some of their work is of questionable quality as is always discussed here, but there are some absolute gems of fire safety consultancies out there catering for companies who can't afford to employ a specific Fire safety manager.

The amount of money in the fire industry suggests to me that complying with the order is high on the agenda of the majority of companies who comply with H and S law. Just look at the quantity of companies providing Fire risk assessment training or fire safety upskilling for managers. They seem to be doing alright financially!

I'm sure you understand that It becomes quite frustrating when companies like mine who are genuinely dealing with the RRO are lumped in with the ones who don't. The forum here blames the RRO when the fault is with the minority of companies who flought the new legislation and don't give a hoot about the consequences.

[Fishy]

The forum here blames the RRO when the fault is with the minority of companies who flought the new legislation and don't give a hoot about the consequences.

Yes and no.  Personally, I'm having a pop ot the RR(FS)O because it's based on a fundamentally flawed rationale.  You can't adequately assess a hazard to conclude what the risk is without relevant training and experience (i.e. competence).  General H&S risk assessment relies heavily on the employers' / employees' experience (of the workplace), normally with a little training - IOSH / NEBOSH - type stuff.  With fire, it will be rare for an employer to have anyone 'on the books' with experience of a significant fire in a building.  So... there are only two ways you can address this - either with extensive training (which, generally speaking, happens nowhere except very big companies and public-sector organisations) or you buy the expertise in (which is PRECISELY what all the blurb and Impact Assessment the Government produced to accompany their proposals said they absolutely did not want to happen).  This is key - there are 2 million businesses in England alone - and even if only 10% of them have any significant fire safety issues, can they all have or buy the competence to adequately assess fire risk?

You're right, of course, re: the Newquay blaze; although the speed of the development strongly suggests to me that some key risk reduction measures were either missing or were ineffective, it would be entirely wrong to conclude (at this stage) that the risk assessment or fire safety management was inadequate.  It is in the nature of risk assessment that you can do it perfectly well, but death or injury can still happen.  Nor is it possible to say (again, at this time) with any surety that fire safety at the Hotel would have been better controlled under a FP Act 1971 - type regime.  No doubt subsequent investigation will reveal more detail.

I have no doubt that many companies are genuinely trying to comply with the Order - but that's not the issue.  It's whether it is credible that more than a small proportion are equipped to successfully and appropriately assess and manage fire risk that's at issue.  I have my doubts - only time (and statistics) will tell...

[Big T]

Extensive training? The fire service college will train someone in industry up to be a "competant person" in 5 days for under a grand.

You could take a total layman and get them tech grade in the IFE with under a fortnights training from a certain H and S training company

Most small - medium sized companies can afford a few grand on training so based on that, the Impact Assessment the Government produced to accompany their proposal was quite correct. Simply because for a couple of hundred quid more than a risk assessment would cost from an external contractor a company could have a "competant person" with IFE accreditation in under a month.

I'm not saying that I agree that they can make someone competant in that time frame, but until the fire service college cease to say you can become a "competant person" in a week and the IFE stop allowing people with 2 weeks fire safety experience to gain Tech grade the arguement that the RR(FS)O is flawed doesn't hold any water with me at all.

I think that perhaps the reality is, we ALL think a Fire risk assessment needs to be more complex than the government, the Fire service college and the IFE do. However, those of us who are competant and who carry out a FRA and deal with the action plan the RR(FS)O works.

[Chris Houston]

For the majority of companies out there the RRO has made fire safety the top of the agenda in the vast majority of board meetings.

I wish you were right, you have been lucky to be dealing with these companies, but I must disagree with this statement.

And much as I am an advokate of companies taking fire safety seriously, even I would not expect it to be the number one issue on the vast majority of board meetings.  I think even the most vocal of us, will acknowledge that companies have lots of issues to concearn themselves with.

[Big T]

I'll revoke that statement then. Just to clarify, I didn't mean every board meeting that has occured since the RRO. My point was that the board of most companies have at least acknowledged the requirement for an FRA and put steps in place to deal with the legislation.

If this isn't the case then these companies won't be taking H and S seriously either. Most H and S managers worth their salt have looked at the RRO and worked out how they can deal with it. By employing a fire safety manager, employing a consultant, having training themselves etc.

It gets a little bit frustrating when all we discuss on here is how pants the RR(FS)O is. Quite a few people who contribute to this forum have made a life for themselves on the back of the order.

Why don't we embrace it rather than just moan about how the government have ruined a perfectly good system.

The most important thing is that the FRA principal hasn't alienated people who used to take fire safety seriously prior to the order, if anything it would have enforced the fire safety culture within that company.

From speaking to various fire safety consultants, some (i wont say "the vast majority" ever again) of the companies they have risk assessed originally had no fire evacuation plan, no training, unserviced extinguishers, fire stopping issues etc etc. These are now action planned and the building is risk assessed. These customers chose to have a risk assessment due to the new order. Under the old regime these companies would not have assessed their fire safety provision and wouldn't have dealt with the issues highlighted. Surely that is a good thing and a relative success.

[Mike Buckley]

Big T

I don't contest that some companies do take fire safety seriously and they do a good job, it is not these companies that cause concern. It is the companies that put fire safety low on the agenda that create the problem. I remember a company from a brigade I was in who under the old act were liable for a fire certificate because they had passed the magic 21 employees. The boss did no more than fire a couple of employees to bring the company under the figure. OK this is an extreme case but the attitude is still there.

Re the training appart from the fact that the FSC is strongly influenced by the government. The college can train someone with no fire experience to become a "competent person" in 5 days, how come it used to take the same college 12 weeks, with a additional period back at the brigade to gain experience, to train an experienced fire fighter to become a FSO to go and solve the same problems that face the competent person?

[Tom Sutton]

Big T I do not agree on your views on how effective the RR(FS)O has been, only time will tell. I do agree with you regarding the slagging off of the order which serves no purpose, its here, you have to accept this. Constructive criticism is the way forward and we may be able to improve the order in the future.

[Big T]

Mike,

It is an extreme case, your right, but it is relevant. You've highlighted that under the old regime there were ways out of the fire certificate, extreme to sack a few people, but it was possible. Where is the out now? aside from employing 4 people, that isn't viable for any medium sized business (unless a consultancy or similar perhaps). Send a FSO to any business now and see if they has a FRA. If they haven't you can cause them serious problems.

I think the reason for the course is that the college can make a quick buck out of it because I don't agree that you can become competant in that period of time but as i mentioned above its sold to us all that it can be done.

This is my point: I think that we assume a FRA needs to be more complex than it needs to be.

Either we accept that the FRA is supposed to be a simple document highlighting the basics and how to deal with the issues, or we fight to ensure that the FSC and other companies can't claim "competant person" status within a week. The FRA's I complete are far more complex and in depth than a one week trained competant person would be.

So tell me. Am i making work for myself by doing in depth assessments? Looking at it, the government only expect me to complete the FRA as a layman

If we feel  that the RR(FS)O is flawed as i do. Lets improve it. Not bin it and slag it off all day