Regulatory Reform Order

[dave bev]

doctor doctor - i think theirs something wrong with my health

- well, thats not good enough, you have to tell me whats wrong

- but i dont know, i just want to be healthy, cant you offer me some guidance even on how to stay healthy

- no, not nowadays m'lad. it would be far to prescriptive to actually tell you what may be wrong, and then tell you ways on how to make yourself better, even to suggest contacting a specialist who deals in nothing other than your type of issues would just not do!

so what do i do then

- just wait until youre poorly, until something happens, then i can tell you what you should have done to prevent it, oh and when you are poorly, because the things are rundown you will need to pay large sums of money into the local surgery because it will be suffering from lack of funding and huge fines will help it to be able to continue raising money in this way

but cant you just give me something to read, sort of how to make yourself better in a day type book

- well we could  but if we did we wouldnt be able to raise finances of you to keep us going would we - next please

id laugh it wasnt so stupid

dave bev

[Bemused]

I think I've been misunderstood.......or is it that I'm misunderstanding?

I've not at any point said that we shouldn't provide guidance.  

The analogy with the medical profession is a useful one.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't provide guidance to someone that believes they may have an illness, what I'm saying is that we should provide guidance on how to determine if they're unwell and how to diagnose their condition.  

Before I'm deafened by the masses claiming that I'm advocating every perosn in the country having to become a risk expert, I'm merely suggesting that we should provide guidance such that employers etc. can make an informed descision rather than "It says in the book so I must comply"!

It's interesting that when refering to the RRO much distain has been leveled at thoe in their ivory towers making the descisions regarding the framework of fire safety, but it is the same people in those same ivory towers that would be producing any prescriptive guidance telling employers etc. what they must do to comply with legislation!

Surely if we're not comfortable with the ivory tower dwellers telling us to assess risk, we can't be comfortable with them telling us how many fire doors we should have.

Also, we can't be happy with these same people telling us what risks we should expect in a building which has been given some arbitary label by those in the ivory tower.

Surely, if we're going to improve things we need to provide employers etc. with the tools to allow them to do the job, not do the job for them!

[dave bev]

dear bemused of bemusington,

i wasnt skitting at you - i also believe that there should be some form of guidance, in fact id say it was an absolute requirement

i also said preiviously that im glad im not the one having to work out what should or shouldnt be contained within it, as for the ivory towerers - i actualy believe there are some great and good up there amongst them, trying to make sense of it all - again im glad im not there - besides my hair aint long enough to play rapunzel!


daddy or chips ? hmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnn

[Bemused]

Chips everytime!!!!!  Preferable not from a chip pan, but some of the oven variety!

[dave bev]

hmmmmmmmnnnnnn

i see you fell into the trap that keeps being set!

why didnt you argue for both, why does it just have to be one way with no compromise, we need a mix/range of solutions/options in my view
and those who only offer the one way need to be encouraged to look at solutions ( i expect some very strong comments after that statement, but i dont set policies and often suggest some are wrong - so try to keep it clean!)

dave bev

[Bemused]

Sneaky!!!  However, Daddy always nicks all the chips!

I don't believe it's possible to have both, i.e. they are mutually exclusive.  

As I've mentioned previously, my understanding of the guidance that is being proposed is that it deals with the issue of fire safety and risk assessment on the basis of different premises.  Hence a need for so many guidance documents and why I believe it's taking so long to produce them. (This is where I came in.)  

If guidance relating to fire risk assessment in a shop is produced which is defferent to the guidance relatimng to risk assessment in a factory, then surely someone must have pre-empted the risks likely to be present in each type of premise.  

If this is the case, then how can we expect the "Responsible Person" to take responsibility for the risk assessment and associated risk management when part of the risk assessement has effectively been completed by a person or persons that haven't even seen the premises for which the "Responsible Person" is responsible?

I'm not saying that one size fits all, in my experience one size usually fits no one 'cos it invariably in cludes all manner of compromise.  

I'm suggesting that risk assessment guidance should be generic and NOT building specific.  I have no problem with providing guidance on measures that may be appropriate to mitigate the risks identified by the risk assessment, as long as the factors influencing such measures and their application are fully described.

Perhaps Daddy won't always nick all of the chips!!

[dave bev]

sorry about the sneaky bit!

good points, well made!

im not sure the guidance can be building specific due to diversity of buildings - if you mean process/industry specific then i understand this is what the guidance is being developed for.

guidance should be generic, but perhaps there are several 'givens' that could be applied to many premises/buildings, therefore providing guidance AND advice?

actually this daddy didnt nick all the cjhips although some say he must have ate all the pies!

dave bev

[Mark Probert - Southam]

Do for release in April 2006

[dave bev]

which 2006?