Northern Ireland Fire Legislation

[nearlythere]

But by avoiding the use of the stupid word responsible person, it will not confuse the fire and rescue authority as it so often does in England, whereby they think that, if anyone  has any duties of running a joint,  they (the FRS) can make them the RP to which the Order makes reference.

The use of a title to identify an individual or group could mean the use of a couple of words instead of a paragraph I would choose the title. If this is the case what title would you use to identify the Person or Persons who has the Responsibility to implement the order.

As to the FRS being confused then that could be up to the calibre or poor training of the new entrants into fire safety, also the lack guidance from government similar to that provided when the FPA was introduced.

The "person who has to any extent control" could be identified as just that or by name, position or title. That could vary within some premises especially one with differing uses throughout the day.
I am going to FRA a church shortly and on considering this matter I would be inclined to think that, say for example when part is being used for the weekly Boys Brigade meeting, the persons who have to any extent control will be the church committee, as it controls the premises, and the person in control of the activity, the BB or GB captain.
I don't think it is an important administration issue really as, in the event of an enforcement or prosecution, regardless of who tries to blame who or what is on a FRA, the F&RS will decide who it deems to be the person who had control at the time to any extent.

[Tom Sutton]

NT I don’t see "person who has to any extent control" as a title that could be used. It could be used as part of the definition or the interpretation of the definition and as we know it is the courts that will finally decide the meaning.

[nearlythere]

NT I don’t see "person who has to any extent control" as a title that could be used. It could be used as part of the definition or the interpretation of the definition and as we know it is the courts that will finally decide the meaning.

True tw but I see the matter of a title as irrelevant as the need for a title of a person driving a car. When it comes to the F&RS deciding who to prosecute it will be who they see as being the person in control at the time.

[Tom Sutton]

I see that NT but when Colin said "responsible person is a stupid word and it confuses the FRS in England" then I disagree I think it is an acceptable title. I do accept that the definition may confuse some people and cause problems for the FRS especially if they are not trained as well as they should.

[colin todd]

With regard to what title COULD be used, this is not hypothetical. As I pointed out, the term RP is not used in Scotland, nor will it be used in NI. So, it is not a matter of what title would I (or anyone else) use, the legislation has been in force in Scotland since the same day as it took force in E&W and manages fine without the term RP. In referring to the person who has duties under s53 or 54 of the Fire (Scotland) Act, the Scottish Government refer to the "duty holder". It is a more precise term than responsible person. And as for training, no less than the deputy senior fire safety officer of a large northern county fire and rescue service that has an inclination to serve enforcement notices like handing out sweeties told me it was ok that they had served one on a lowly duty manager who happened to be there at the time, as they dont deal with what he chose to describe as "some bod sat in London", but they, the FRS, MAKE whoever they consider responsible at the time the RP. Sadly, when I asked what Article 3 had to say about the subject of RP, he said he had no idea. If he had been faced with the term duty holder, it might have occurred to him to find out who actually did have duties imposed upon them. People tend to confuse the RP of the Order with anyone they happen to think has responsibility in the English, as opposed to legal, sense of the word. Such a person just MIGHT be a person in control of premises, but what they most certainly are not is the RP.

[Tom Sutton]

Thanks Colin very interesting and food for thought but RP is something in E&W we are now stuck with. However even if the term duty holder had been used I do not think it would have made any difference to the deputy senior fire safety officer you spoke of.
 
I believe it’s more about the apparent lack the necessary knowledge of some FRS fire safety departments and the standard of training, more than the use of the terminology in legislation.

[colin todd]

Training is clearly an issue, but, subtle though it may be, the concept of duty holder, implies duties under the legislation and focusses the mind on the question as to who actually does have such duties. Responsibility is a term that is in more common and less precise use. Clearly the duty manager was responsible for the hotel operation at the time the fire safety officers arrived to demand, via an enforcement notice, intumescent strips on all existing fire doors, a manual call point sign beside a manual call point as it was stated by the FRS that its absence was, in any case a breach of the H&S(SS&S) Regs, even though these regs do not cover manual call point signs, and a raft of other tat, including an allegation that a lick of paint on an intumescent strip stops it from expanding. However, the question is quite simple, namely who did she employ under a contract of employment. Answer: No one. So, by definition, she was not the RP in the case of a workplace. One F&RS has had 3 enforcement notices sent back because of errors in completion, including the correct RP. In theory, it should be simple, and it actually is, provided you have people who know what they are doing completing them.

[colin todd]

Further to the above, I have just read an "elightening" article in Fire Risk Management that states that a manager can be the responsible person and that if a sub-contractor changes a cable and a fire ensues because of a fault in it, then the responsibility for the outcome can rest with this responsible person. QED!

[PhilB]

Yes, I know - these articles are a straight copy of Sections 53 and 54 of the Fire (Scotland) Act. But by avoiding the use of the stupid word responsible person, it will not confuse the fire and rescue authority as it so often does in England, whereby they think that, if anyone  has any duties of running a joint,  they (the FRS) can make them the RP to which the Order makes reference.

The term "responsible person" is not that confusing Collllin...well not to the better trained. In many cases is not really very relevant because offences can be committed by anyone and any person who has to any extent control has to comply with the Order whether or not they are the responsible person.

So the Engish are quite correct to think that any person who has some control may be the person who has certain duties.

Serious question....why do you think the FRS are confused on this issue, has it caused any recent problems?



...........and why have you Scottish persons confused the issue of what is and what is not a domestic premises??

The definition in the Fire(Scotland) Act is different to the Order, do you know why old boy??

[colin todd]

Phillip, if I may deal with your questions in strict rotation:

1. Alas a lot of enforcement is not carried out by the well trained- as you should know since your previous employer did a lot of the training!!!!!
2. It IS relevant because a lot of notices get it wrong. And the duty imposed on a person having control is not an absolute one, whereas that of the RP employer is. That is a fundamental aspect of the Order.
3. I know that the English may perceive that certain duties may be imposed on certain persons, but, again, that does not make them the RP and there are subtle distinctions between the RP and the person in control.
4. I am totally convinced (and have a lot of evidence to show) that enforcing authorities (and, to be fair, many others) are horrendously confused about this.
5. Yes, i do know why, but the reason is not that suggested at one training seminar by some herberts from a well-known seat of learning with which you may have some familiarity, namely that it might just be a typo by the Scottish Government that somehow not one of the 6 million people in Scotland had noticed over the last two years.
6. The question is why did the English confuse the issue of what is domestic premises, so causing all the problems described in these BBs about doormats in the common parts and fire extinguishers for wrinklies to allegedly fight there way out of infernos in the common parts of blocks of flats.

ps rumour has it that you once confused Dumfries with Gullane-its a darned confusing place that Scotland is it not???

[PhilB]

Phillip, if I may deal with your questions in strict rotation:

1. Alas a lot of enforcement is not carried out by the well trained- as you should know since your previous employer did a lot of the training!!!!!
2. It IS relevant because a lot of notices get it wrong. And the duty imposed on a person having control is not an absolute one, whereas that of the RP employer is. That is a fundamental aspect of the Order.
3. I know that the English may perceive that certain duties may be imposed on certain persons, but, again, that does not make them the RP and there are subtle distinctions between the RP and the person in control.
4. I am totally convinced (and have a lot of evidence to show) that enforcing authorities (and, to be fair, many others) are horrendously confused about this.
5. Yes, i do know why, but the reason is not that suggested at one training seminar by some herberts from a well-known seat of learning with which you may have some familiarity, namely that it might just be a typo by the Scottish Government that somehow not one of the 6 million people in Scotland had noticed over the last two years.
6. The question is why did the English confuse the issue of what is domestic premises, so causing all the problems described in these BBs about doormats in the common parts and fire extinguishers for wrinklies to allegedly fight there way out of infernos in the common parts of blocks of flats.

ps rumour has it that you once confused Dumfries with Gullane-its a darned confusing place that Scotland is it not???

Collin does Mrs Todd allow you to stay up that late?, you need your beauty sleep!

1.I know you’d like to blame me for all the failings of the FSC but I didn’t personally train all the FRS inspectors, honest guvernor.
2. Most FRS use the letters drafted by Hampshire and the term responsible person is not used in the enforcement notice.
The wording is: “the Fire and Rescue Authority are of the opinion that, as a person being under an obligation to do so,  you have failed to comply with the requirements placed upon you..”
Now that person is not necessarily the responsible person and no-one should be suggesting that they are. You make a good point however about the absolute duty placed on the employer.
3. Agreed but action may still be taken against them including serving enforcement notices and prosecution.
4. Lack of training I believe. Many FRS inspectors have still not received appropriate training and guidance issued by the Secretary of State is poor in my opinion.
5. No I have never believed that it was a typo. The definition used in the Order is a cut and paste from the HASAW etc Act and as you know the definition in the Act is fundamentally different. I would be interested to know why.
6. I don’t think it is confusing but lack of competence by many assessors and enforcers has caused many problems as well you know Mr Toddd.


Ah yes dear Dumfries. I spent some time there after following a set of diversion signs that led me back to where I started from....how I laughed as a arrived at my starting point for the third time!!! Was that your attempt to stop me reaching Gullane Colllin?

[Tom Sutton]

Phillip, if I may deal with your questions in strict rotation:

1. Alas a lot of enforcement is not carried out by the well trained- as you should know since your previous employer did a lot of the training!!!!!

Colin in the early 90's, most Brigades had limited the number of candidates they sent to Moreton and favoured in house training, well before risk assessment and the RR(FS)O so you should be looking at those who provide the training now and in the recent past, give them some stick.

[kurnal]

The action plan section of my fire risk assessment template has fallen into the trap of describing any person who has responsibility to implement an element of the plan as a person responsible.

Is this just a rather backwards Responsible Person?

I cannot perceive how, in the hotel scenario discussed by Colin, the duty manager could be held soley responsible for any breaches of the Order? Whilst the Duty Manager has control of the premises (and therefore subject to article 5(3)) if he were to breach these duties I would have expected ANY enforcement action to be replicated to the Employer in this situation, and possibly further scrutiny of the Responsible Persons compliance with articles 5 and 11?(POCMAR).

Now making the best of a bad job, for the purpose of a Fire Risk Assessment report,  how could we best describe those persons who have duties under article 5(3) or  5(4).  (Or 17 and 18) They currently appear in my risk assessment template as responsible persons as opposed to the Responsible Person but does this muddy the waters? We need to keep things brief but would the term "duty holder under article 5" et al be an improvement? Or doesnt it matter?

Whilst many will accuse us of engaging in somantics, it is important if we are to keep our industry out of the hands of lawyers and barristers. How often on hearing of acquittals in criminal cases on technical grounds do you ask yourself "yes but did he do it?" I do all the time. Our appeals should be focussed on the general fire precautions and we should not be allowing time and money to be wasted in persuance of technical acquittals.

[PhilB]

The action plan section of my fire risk assessment template has fallen into the trap of describing any person who has responsibility to implement an element of the plan as a person responsible.

Is this just a rather backwards Responsible Person?

Whilst many will accuse us of engaging in somantics, it is important if we are to keep our industry out of the hands of lawyers and barristers. How often on hearing of acquittals in criminal cases on technical grounds do you ask yourself "yes but did he do it?" I do all the time. Our appeals should be focussed on the general fire precautions and we should not be allowing time and money to be wasted in persuance of technical acquittals.

I don't think it really matters what you call them in your document Kurnal but perhaps it would be best not to refer to them as the responsible person if they are not as defined in the order.

FRS use a form when conducting audits and it has a box for "the responsible person" now for example when auditing a store like B&Q or Sainsburys the manager will not be the responsible person as defined in the Order but the body corporate will be....but most inspectors will enter the name of the manager as the responsible person.

The authors of the form clearly don't realise the problem, nor do most inspectors ...semantics it may be but as you correctly point out the lawyers could make enforcers look very silly and if documents are not correctly worded and served they will be worthless.

[Davidrh]

I think I will sell up and buy a hotel in NI