Proposals for compulsory certification of fire risk assessors

[Midland Retty]

Secondly I think it is important that any such scheme doesn't place unrealistic financial burdens on self employed assessors who want to gain accreditation. The idea is to worm out the cowboys in the business, not price otherwise competent assessors out of the market.

Also to assist the RP further in selecting a competent assessor do we go along the lines of implementing a structured competency scale. For instance to be deemed competent to risk assess a corner shop you only need level 1 risk assessment training for instance, yet if you want to be deemed competent to risk assess a chemical refinery you need to have level 5 training etc etc

A balanced view Retty but what about the possible financial constraints Davo points out

Im not sure how this would be resolved, but it all comes back to what I was saying about making any potential scheme financially accessible for all that need it. Perhaps Im being a little niave, but it would be a missed opportunity if the proposed "national scheme" became simply a cash cow.

[Clevelandfire 3]

You're being very naive as it happens. You like to give politicians answers Retty yet dont seem to have common sense answers for sensible questions.

[colin todd]

Clevey, not wishing to interefere but what was the question you wanted Grand Master Retty to answer. As his erstwhile new best friend, I may be able to assist.

[Clevelandfire 3]

I was pulling his leg CT you probably didn't spot the irony. Funny he has to get bigger boys to fight his battles for him though lol.

[hammer1]

Has this thread drifted abit? I thought the original problem was how a RP could judge the competence of a Risk Assessor. There is no need for an enforcing authority to vet a risk assessor's assessments. What is needed is an easy and reliable way for a RP to judge the capability of a risk assessor as it will be on the RP's head if it goes wrong. It is up to the RP to use a competent person to assist him and if he doesn't and gets caught, it is the RP who will be prosecuted for not having a suitable and sufficient FRA.

The obvious answer is a certification scheme. The RP has an assurance that an assessor who is approved by the scheme is a competent person to carry out the FRA. Then if something does go wrong the RP can prove that he appointed a competent person ie that person was certified. I very much doubt that there will be a compulsory scheme as it will cost the government too much to set it up and keep it running.

The next bit is getting certified which is where I was talking about a two stage scheme with a probationary Fire Risk Assessor status and a full Fire Risk Assessor status. To gain probationary status you have to prove that you have some knowledge, experience and training in the field. You then get a card to carry out assessments as a probationer. The RP then knows that you have a level of competence and can judge whether or not to employ you for the job. Obviously this will depend on the compexity of the job but again it is up to the RP. the RP could be justified in using a probationer to do an assessment for a small factory, office or shop but would not be justified in using one for a major petrochemical site.

Yes there will still be RPs who wish to use uncertifed people, but the same RPs may very well not bother with a fire risk assessment at all.

Surely the whole point of the FSO is that the RP can conduct the risk assessment themselves where appropriate to lessen the burden amongst other things. Are people saying that only risk assessors on a national register should conduct risk assessments?? surely this goes against what is said in Law

Article 9 The responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed on him by or under this Order.

Obviously where competent risk assessors come in is Article 18

(1)The responsible person must, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7), appoint one or more competent persons to assist him in undertaking the preventive and protective measures.
 (7) Paragraph (1) does not apply to individuals who are employers and who are together carrying on business in partnership, where at least one of the individuals concerned has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities—


This would not only include risk assessment but training, fire safety arrangements etc. Should there be national competent register in training then, why solely risk assessors??.

With a national register would RP be no longer viable to conduct FRA's themselves, will all enforcing bodies use the register as a benchmark when assessing peoples risk assessments??

Would we need a slight amendment in the FSO to ensure this national register has any substance and is not just a money making scheme.

[kurnal]

Surely the whole point of the FSO is that the RP can conduct the risk assessment themselves where appropriate to lessen the burden amongst other things. Are people saying that only risk assessors on a national register should conduct risk assessments?? surely this goes against what is said in Law

No I dont think anybody is saying that. I think the crux is that if the RP choses to seek assistance and to pay a contractor to provide such assistance, there should be an easy way for them to judge
the competence of the individuals and businesses offering such services.

Whether a register is the way forward is open to debate.

I feel very strongly that a suitable register is a way forward but to those of us in the industry there are reservations about the schemes currently in operation. Only one has UKAS accreditation, and although set up as an independent company they are very closely tied to their parent company which itself offers fire consultancy services. Within the Industry some of us have major reservations over whether such an organisation can be truly independent, we would need very strong reassurance and evidence of their total independence before using them.
Some of our peers also regard the IFE scheme with some suspicion as each application is considered by a panel of peers, many of whom may be in direct competition. At least with the IFE scheme the reports submitted for scrutiny have clients personal details and company names removed.

[Mike Buckley]

Yes I agree with Kurnal, if the RP chooses to do the assessment himself, then it is on his own head. In a similar way if the RP chooses to appoint one of his employees to do the assessment (with or without training), that also is up to him.

Where the problem comes is when the RP decides that these two courses are not satisfactory and decides to employ an outside "competent" person to do the assessment for him, how can he judge the competence of the person? At the end of the day anyone can claim to be competent but it is the RP who gets it in the neck if it goes wrong. We have all seen the companies who are in for the quick buck and will disappear as soon as there is any trouble, to immediately reappear under a new name.

I am sure that many of the members of this forum have had the same experience as I have going into a place where the fire alarm system has been installed by an "alarm company" and have to tell the RP that the system doesn't meet any known standard and is little better than useless. This is what we need to avoid in the risk assessment business.

[Bobbins]

[/quote]

No I dont think anybody is saying that. I think the crux is that if the RP choses to seek assistance and to pay a contractor to provide such assistance, there should be an easy way for them to judge
the competence of the individuals and businesses offering such services.

Whether a register is the way forward is open to debate.

I feel very strongly that a suitable register is a way forward but to those of us in the industry there are reservations about the schemes currently in operation. Only one has UKAS accreditation, and although set up as an independent company they are very closely tied to their parent company which itself offers fire consultancy services. Within the Industry some of us have major reservations over whether such an organisation can be truly independent, we would need very strong reassurance and evidence of their total independence before using them.
Some of our peers also regard the IFE scheme with some suspicion as each application is considered by a panel of peers, many of whom may be in direct competition. At least with the IFE scheme the reports submitted for scrutiny have clients personal details and company names removed.
[/quote]


Oh Kurnal you do make me chuckle!

You seem to give credit for UKAS accreditation yet in the same paragraph you dismiss it as not being enough of an assurance for the independence of the Warrington scheme.

The ‘checkers are being checked’ what more do you want? Once again nothing is good enough for the Kurnal, so again I ask for some answers and not just for you to take the easy option and knock everything that’s out there.

I can’t imagine you will come up with anything other than a BS standard scheme with UKAS accreditation, with the possibility of BAFE involvement. Although BAFE take their cut from the certification bodies so it has cost implications and it is only my opinion, but they add very little to the process.

The level playing field is out there but some people refuse to accept it even exists.

My concern is that the FIA/IFE/BAFE scheme will perpetuate the status quo.

I can almost predict the competence element of the ‘quality company’ scheme;

COMPETENCE LISTINGS

The IFE register is a given as is the FRACS scheme, if you are on the IFSM register you are out of the picture I am afraid. (Not strong enough assessment and no IFSM representation on the FIA committee)

TRAINING FOR COMPETENCE

Nebosh and ABBE (not sure what level) are a given as is an IFE approved scheme. Fire safety engineering degrees will also do the job I assume.

EXPERIENCE FOR COMPETENCE

This is the only bit I struggle on I would say a minimum of 12 months in the fire safety industry would possibly be required.

Actually you know what, just down load the IFE matrix on what makes competence and that’s pretty much what you will end up with.

As an RP all I want is one list, one system, one way, to ensure that the person who I appoint is competent to do the job. I want the cowboys out of business and the only way to do that is have a single unified agreed method of assessment. Forum members have pointed out that this is never going to happen and I agree too many people looking after their own interests and no one looking out for the RP.

My one remaining hope is that the current government gets something in place following their review and the Conservatives are too busy to look at it again until the next multiple fatality fire.

[Midland Retty]

Clevey, not wishing to interefere but what was the question you wanted Grand Master Retty to answer. As his erstwhile new best friend, I may be able to assist.

Aw thanks Col, youre like my very own (Ken) Knight in Shining Armour!

Bobbins,

I dont think anyone is contradicting themselves, I think they are simply pointing out that none of the schemes are fully or truly independent.

The UKAS accreditation process purely looks at the competence of an organisation to provide training or to adjudicate and assess others for example, it is beyond the scope of UKAS to look at how that organisation conducts itself in other business matters and practices.

I have jumped the fence many times during this argument. At first I thought a Governement lead scheme would the only sure fire way of ensuring complete independence from the industry, but of course this is not the case, and no scheme will ever be truly independent.

Also do we really want the government to get involved given its performance in other areas?, and if Downing Streets best were to implement their own compulsory scheme would they not simply approach the big players in the industry for advice and consultation on how that scheme would be run? If so would this be a good or bad thing?

Its a catch 22 situation in many respects, and I certainly do not deem it to be a level playing field at all.

[kurnal]

Thanks Bobbins
I am glad I make you chuckle, though do I detect the faintest undercurrent of frustration?
Is your friendly chuckle really to cover up a snarl?

Yes in reality you may end up close to the mark, time will tell. I recognise it matters little what you or I think, there are powerful vested interests here and huge diversity amongst service providers. There is also huge diversity amongst RPs- -you say you are speaking on behalf of the RPs - but which ones? Blue chip? Major corporates? SMEs? Sole traders? Commercial, Industrial, leisure or care sector?

I too think I have a good feel for what many RPs are looking for within the sector I operate in. My customers keep coming back for more and recommending us to others. Our services are very often compared most favourably against other providers - some with very big names.

But I am fearful that if the big boys of the BSI have it all their own way- or the politicians for that matter - then the smaller businesses will be squeezed out through disproportionate overheads of a system that will very quickly become little more than a rubber stamp for the big corporates.

The big players will have sufficient clout to ensure that the system does not hamper their continuity of service in any way. This will limit its effectiveness as a tool for the RP.

 If we are not very careful we could all end up with a useless millstone around our necks. I have the influence of a grain of sand in the ocean, but the FIA is kind enough to offer me the chance to state my opinion so I give it my best shot with them. I may be dissapointed by the outcome but it wont stop me trying. The fllowing is aspirational and offered as a talking point. It is probably pie in the sky as you point out.

What does the Industry need? It needs to have a strategy in place to replace the aging ex fire officers as the tap of experienced ex fire service staff will run dry within about 5 years. The big problem is that so much of the industry relies on retired ex fire officers even some of the big players- FPA included- rely almost totally on them.

Much of the remainder  is made up of general H&S staff who have bolted on something like the NEBOSH fire module to their Gen Cert. The big problem with this group is they do not have the underpinning knowledge of how buildings and systems are put together and interact with each other. Their evaluation of buildings and systems is generally superficial. Then there are those with degrees in fire engineering many of whom are excellent (though often they believe their formulae and CFD a little too much and have little experience of management and human factors) They also desire  a more significant salary commanding fees that the RP in the SME sector cannot meet.

How do we get round this? We need to find a route to bring in young blood to the industry.
First and formost a recognised qualification and route to competence through affordable courses that are accessible on a parallel with the ABBE scheme.  Government funding should be available to those employers willing to develop this sector. The medium larger companies in the sector should be encouraged and rewarded for offering apprenticeships. Fire Authorities and insurance companies have an interest and should appoint business community/ client support officers to visit local companies, pass the fire prevention and safety message and  whilst doing so to develop their  expertise. The FPA, BAFE, ABE IFE and FIA et al could all contribute to the scheme in financial or supportive ways.

Then we need a range of official formal qualifications that are recognised and stand on their own. Something  culminating with the status of the NEBOSH diploma and with a practical exam at the end of it. The tech / Grad / MIFireE would be great but its too service orientated.

And in parallel to this a fully independent certification scheme. Competence would be assessed in a subjective manner depending on the qualifications and experience of the individual, a model based on the IFE scheme but with a range of access points into it. Involving at least one on site assessment and review of their work to establish a level.  The assessment not to be by peer review but by professionally appointed staff employed for this purpose. This would lead to a more consistent, reliable and accountable outcome.  

My ideal certification scheme would cater for a range of skill levels, functions, and occupancy/ building types in a modular approach.

Quantitve assessment
Qualitative assessment
Structural assessment
Fire engineering

Life risk
Property protection
Business continuity
Environmental and social impact

Suppression systems
Healthcare premises
Residential premises
Commercial premises
Custodial premises
Industrial plants
DSEAR
etc.

This could not be introduced as a big bang- it would be prohibitively expensive and place unrealistic burdens on current businesses. It would need to be introduced on a phased basis over say 10 years.

[Bobbins]

Kurnal I knew you had the capacity to contribute and not just chuck a spanner in the works. Thanks for putting in the effort it is much better to read positive thoughts than negative.

I like some of your ideas and think that some of them could even work. I am not convinced you can do all that on the cheap, but if that’s the price you have to pay for a decent system then so be it. (but you can’t complain about the cost of things in one breath and then come up with what would cost £1000s in another) 

It seems very complicated to me and as such will take years to get in place, my thoughts are we go for the simplest option that is available now. 17024. It is the way to go, in my eyes it covers all and if another certification firm could take it up, assessors could have a choice of who to go to. However my understanding of UKAS is they look in to the impartiality of the cert body during audits that’s how you get mutual acceptance of certification across cert bodies. So if you don’t have faith in a UKAS approved scheme/body then the fire safety industry is doomed. You would be hard pressed to find anything fire or building related that has not been tested or certificated by a UKAS approved body.

Kurnal as you say; all we can do is keep trying to offer something and let the big guys get on with it.

[Davo]

Prof

Trust you to bring pie into the conversation



davo

[Clevelandfire 3]

Fair play Kurnal I think you have hit the nail on the head. Ive nowt to add to your response just that I totally agree. Kurnal for Prime Minister!!

[colin todd]

Grand Wizard Retty, if you continue to describe me as Ken Knight, I will cease to be your new best friend.
However, you are totally incorrect about UKAS- they actually spend a lot of time looking at how a CB conducts its business. I can assure you of this as a UKAS "industry sector expert". Similarly, I cannot understand Kurnals self contradiction in which he seems to fail to grasp the firewall (no pun intended) that must be in place between a CB and other activities of the CB owner. In assessments we even raise an issue if the CB inspector even suggests to a certificated firm how to fix a non compliance, since, technically, to do so, is giving consultancy advice which an accredited CB is not allowed to do,
 
As for independence of IFE, all professional bodies do peer group assessment- its what they do for goodness sake.

[Bobbins]

There you go Kurnal straight from a UKAS inspector’s keyboard. I know you have reservations about how independent Warrington and the IFE schemes are, and Colin probably can’t comment on if he did the Warrington inspection. However I am guessing he knows the process inside out and that UKAS do look in to all areas as I suspected; this should be the evidence/assurance you need to persuade you that the FRACS scheme is above board. With the IFE scheme it is peer assessment which has no external auditing at all and as such is open to question. I think it is probably a pretty robust system but it is too subjective for me and the anecdotal evidence suggests it is very open to abuse, therefore I think it needs to change to a certification model let UKAS get involved, I guarantee Colin won’t be doing that Audit! .

With reference to the private message you sent me, I do actually know what you are referring to (it is a reasonably small risk assessor world after all) It’s just a lot of huffing and puffing from one company, without a leg to stand on.