Have a read of this, a briefing note to the Fire Minister from the B&B Association.
Impact of Inconsistent and Disproportionate Implementation
of the RRFSO on the Tourism Accommodation Sector
BRIEFING NOTE
To: Parmjit Dhanda MP, Fire Safety Minister
17 July 2008
We (David Weston, Chief Executive, Bed & Breakfast Association, Andy Woodward, Chief Executive, Farm Stay UK, Martin Sach, Chief Executive, English Association of Self-Catering Operators and Bernard Brindley, Vice Chairman, British Institute of Innkeeping) represented accommodation owners at a meeting on 1st July at DCLG (at which Pam Bunston represented DCMS), which gave feedback on a new, more user-friendly leaflet for small accommodation providers about their responsibilities under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (“RRFSO”).
We support the new leaflet, but feel that the main issue which needs addressing by DCLG is guidance to Fire and Rescue Authorities, not to accommodation providers (where DCLG’s own research showed 86% awareness already of the need to do a fire risk assessment).
The large number of representations we have received from small accommodation providers make it clear to us that:
• There is very wide inconsistency between different fire departments in their approach to accommodation owners; for instance, for the smallest "domestic" properties some fire departments are happy with hand torches and some "demand" commercial-type emergency lighting systems (this is just one small example amongst many we could quote)
• Some fire departments are adopting a very prescriptive approach, against the express intentions of the RRFSO
• Some fire departments seem to be "enforcing the guide", which has no legal status, rather than recognising that the owner has fulfilled his responsibilities by carrying out his own "suitable and sufficient" Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) and (only if they have 5 or more employees) to record their FRA, and then in the light of their FRA to make appropriate fire safety arrangements
• There is often no recognition that many of the premises concerned are primarily domestic premises
• There is all too often little heed taken of the RRFSO's emphasis on proportionality, ie low compliance burden for the smallest domestic and semi-domestic premises
It is important to remember that the Government intended the RRFSO as a deregulatory measure, bringing in a new self-assessment regime to replace the old "Fire Certificate" regime. It is expressly not intended to place onerous new burdens on businesses or render whole categories of small businesses economically unviable. The Order states that "the Secretary of State is of the opinion that this Order does not remove any necessary protection or prevent any person from continuing to excercise any right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to continue to excercise".
Unlike the old (1971) regime, it is not prescriptive - ie the new regulations do not oblige any owner to put in any specific fire precautions. Rather, they oblige every owner to carry out their own "suitable and sufficient" Fire Risk Assessment (FRA), and (if they have 5 or more employees) to record their FRA, and then in the light of their FRA to make appropriate fire safety arrangements, having regard to the size and the nature of their business.
The RRFSO is very specifically intended to be proportionate, ie to fully take into account the size and nature of each business; it requires owners to take "such general fire precautions as may be reasonably required in the circumstances of the case" (Part 2, Section 8.1.b). These (fire safety) arrangements must be "appropriate, having regard to the size of [the owner's] undertaking and the nature of its activities" (Part 2, Section 11.1). The words "so far as is reasonably practicable" appear three times in section 12, as does "appropriate to the nature of the activity or operation".
In section 13 (Fire-fighting and fire detection), the Order requires the owner to provide fire-fighting equipment "to the extent that it is appropriate" - and this is further clarified as "having regard to the dimensions of the premises, the equipment contained on the premises, the physical and chemical properties of the substances likely to be present and the maximum number of persons who may be present at any one time" (in the small B&Bs not previously subject to the 1971 requirements, for instance, the number present will be between one and six people, apart from the family whose domestic premises these are).
In the light of all the evidence since October 2006, it is clear that DCLG need to give strong and clear guidance on all this to fire departments, to ensure that the RRFSO's key principles of deregulation, lighter burden, and proportionality are followed, and that householders are treated consistently across the country.
There is a real urgency about this, as hundreds of tourist accommodation providers are closing or about to close as a direct result of the way the RRFSO is currently being implemented. We know that the Minister of Tourism is very concerned about the resultant effect on tourism, which threatens to undermine key parts of the Government’s tourism strategy (including the Olympic tourism legacy). This impact departs widely from the proportionate, self-assessment based, risk-based regime expressly laid out within the RRFSO.
We agree with Tourism South East's view (in Daniel Humphreys' letter to DCLG of 27 June) that:
"we believe that whilst this guidance [to accommodation owners] is a welcome addition to the information already available, it should be considered as a second priority for the DCLG. It is far more important to deal with the inconsistent approach being pursued by the different Fire and Rescue Authorities which is already having a detrimental effect on the tourism industry in some locations of the South East of England."
Norfolk Tourism also agree with our view; Martin Hickey of Norfolk Tourism, in his letter to Louise Upton of DCLG of 16th June, stated:
"we feel the purpose behind your circular of May 19th and the draft booklet is misplaced. What is needed from your Department is guidance to the Fire Services as to the degree of flexibility they can show towards small B&B's in the type and extent of fire detection and prevention measures required. The technical details are more than amply covered by the 147 page guidance document headed 'Fire Safety Risk Assessment - Sleeping accommodation'."
VisitBritain have advised us they are "keen we take a co-ordinated approach to the issue of differences in interpretation of the [RRFSO]" and have stated publicly that:
"VisitBritain (VB) is very much aware of all the difficulties being experienced by operators who were previously not covered by fire certificates...We are very concerned about the way in which some businesses are being dealt with."
Louise Upton of DCLG has said “I recognise your concerns over perceptions of disproportionate enforcement by some fire safety officers, and the adverse impact this is having on some within the sector… CFOA [Chief Fire Officers Association] also recognise the issues that your e-mail raises”. She has advised us that:
“I can assure you we certainly don't underestimate the concerns around business viability and motivation following the introduction of the Order, and the adverse impact that the approach being taken by some fire safety officers is having on the [tourism] industry. We are considering, with CFOA and others, a range of means to address this and will keep the sector informed of progress in due course.”
However, we are concerned that what may be being discussed will fall short of what is clearly needed: strong and clear guidance from the Secretary of State for CLG to Fire & Rescue Authorities on the proportional and consistent enforcement of the RRFSO.
We call on you as Fire Minister to ask your Secretary of State, Hazel Blears, to issue such clear guidance without delay.
We are very happy to take a constructive part in the formulation of the guidance, if appropriate, but it does not need to be highly sector-specific. The guidance should address the issue of compliance burdens on all micro-organisations not within the ambit of previous legislation, especially those whose operations benefit the UK’s export income, provide indirect employment and reduce Britain’s balance of payments deficit.
