Arson Plicy

[stewbow]

A lady recently applied to sell wine with boquets at a flower shop, and at some stage the local FA have sent a letter to her asking for a FRA, and also her Arson Policy

This is the 3rd time that I have seen this type of letter sent out, yet I can't see any reference to a "fire policy" in the RRO guidlines.

comments please?

[Mr. P]

A good one, ask the FA to explain their stance on this requirement.

[afterburner]

Could this be an 'initiative' from elsewhere dressed up as 'Policy' and given pseudo - legislative credibility?

Creating another level of assessing risk and detailing actions?

Is it possible such things happen?

[CivvyFSO]

Arson policies are good preventative measures, also could be classed measures to restrict the spread of fire or measures to mitigate the effects of fire. (General fire precautions)

It would only need to be something relatively simple in the circumstances you describe, i.e. External bins are locked and kept away from the building. And would generally form part of the FRA anyway.

[kurnal]

It has been suggested there is too much arson about in the banter bar.

Since arson is alleged to be the cause of 44% of all fires ( or thereabouts it depends whose statistics you read) then as Civvy points out it is absolutely right that the Responsible Person should consider measures to reduce the risk of arson in accordance with the principles of prevention.

[Midland Retty]

Agreed Kurnal

It is an important consideration, and something I always look for in the Fire Risk Assessment / Fire Policy.

[Mr. P]

Have always put in a line or 2. Mostly to recognise the possibility of arson and for people to remain vigilant for suspicious goings on etc.  But action to take is going to be in line and relevant with ability of those where the ra is about.

[nearlythere]

Makes sense to mention securing of bins especially wheelie ones and security of plastic oil tanks.

[afterburner]

there a wee difference here. the possiblity of wilful fire raising (arson) should be recognised in the hazard identification part of the risk assessment process, and risk reduction methods and provisons put into place arising from the 'significant findings'. Having a 'Policy' is somewhat different. it is a legal declaration of what you will do or not do and you can be held to task for not complying with your published Policy.

therefore asking for a Policy may well be inter-meshed with the FRA but it can be a separate document. Or have I got this all wrong? 

[Midland Retty]

Hi AB

If the potential of arson is highlighted as being a significant finding then clearly control measures will be required.

I was just pointing out that in some cases (particulalry large / complex premises) the fire policy and / or emergency plans may need to be updated accordingly.

[CivvyFSO]

therefore asking for a Policy may well be inter-meshed with the FRA but it can be a separate document. Or have I got this all wrong? 

The policy might be mentioned in the risk assessment, i.e. The arson hazard is acknowledged in the assessment, and the preventative measure to reduce the risk is that there is an arson policy in place, just as there might be a housekeeping policy. (The risk assessment can refer to other documents) This might be expected to be a recorded policy (or arrangement) by virtue of article 11. Don't forget that regardless of the number of employees if there is a licence in force (which there will be eventually) the arrangements should be recorded. But as you say this could actually be covered in the risk assessment itself. It will be a standard letter that they (FRS) sent out, and I can't see them arguing if the arson risk is detailed in the RA instead of a seperate policy.

[Chris Houston]

In my opinion their role is to decide if her risk assesment is appropraite or not.  It should consider the chance that a fire may start from arson, but she need not have an "arson policy" likewise she need not have a "fires caused by electrical origin" policy or any other policy.

She either has a risk assessment that they are happy with or she doesn't.

[SmokeyDokey]

It looks to me like what the FR are looking for is the Article 11 arrangements for effective planning, organisation, control, monitoring, and review of the preventative and protective measures - one of which should be the general fire precaution of "Measures to reduce the risk of fire on the premises and the risk of spread of fire on the premises" (Art 4(1)(a)) and which have to be recorded if there are 5 or more emplyees etc.

That document should inluce the arrangments for managing arson risk - and overall sounds like a company policy document to me.

[Chris Houston]

Exactly.  The FRA should include this.  So the FRA is either good enough or not.  They should not ask for the FRA and a list of other things.  A sufficient FRA is enough.

[CivvyFSO]

The arrangements outlined in article 11 would not necessarily be in the risk assessment. The risk assessment would show what general fire precautions are required (and what precautions are already in place) to protect relevant persons, (Then article 9 is complied with) the RP should put those measures in place, (Various articles will be complied with by this act)

Article 11 then asks for the 'arrangements' covering the ongoing aspect of maintaining and monitoring the suitability those measures, with the need to record these arrangements following the same criteria as article 9.

I think this is better thought of as an explanation of 'how' a RP is going to comply. i.e. RA identifies arson as a risk, and suggests a method of dealing with arson. By creating a written arson policy (i.e. This is how we are going to deal with the risk... This is how often we will review the suitability...) this is complying (in part) with article 11. By actually instigating the policy in reality, the RP is then complying with article 8. (So far as the arson risk is involved)