Private Sector Enforcement of Technical Fire Safety

[Studius]

Over recent years there has been an increase in non uniformed / non operational FS officers throughout the UK. Looking back the Bickerdyke Allen 1990 review suggested that enforcement be opened up to the private sector. Is this a step too far or similar to what is happening to forensic science?

[kurnal]

Bickerdyke Allen brought about changes to the way the  Fire Safety elements of the Building Regulations were enforced.  Also lets not forget that the insurance companies already play an important role in enforcement.
Similarly whenever there is a case to be determined by technical evidence then expert witnesses will be used to advise the enforcers- either the fire authorities during investigations or the Courts once a case is brought. These expert witnesses are invariably from the private sector.

Enforcement is a very wide term. I wonder from which angle you are interested in the Private Sector's involvement?
Auditing and verifying standards through inspections?
Requirements, improvements and prohibitions?
Encouraging good standards through education publicity and training?
Investigation and Prosecution?

[Studius]

Thanks Kurnal,


My involvement is through FRS, and "enforcement" is such a wide descriptor, but your list does encompass a FRA's duty, so it would be difficult to disect, as it is the whole that must be attended to.
The private setor is now well established with consultancy in this field, but as many FRA's increase the numbers of non uniformed FSO's and finances get tighter. Would there be sufficent financial gain for the private sector?
If a FRA takes on a prosecution it will never recover the full cost of its action and I cannot see how moving this "service" into the commercial environment would make it more effective.
Thanks for the reminder about insurance companies, they are sometimes overlooked.

[jokar]

Some Brigades have looked at outsourcing their fire safety enforcement role to other providers such as the FPA.  I am not aware of how detailed the discussions were but it is feasible that it could occur in the future.  The likes of compan's such as AssetCo would be willing no doubt to look quite closely at this type of work by picking up on retired or retiring fire safety officers on contracts and utilising their knowledge of enforcement within an FRS structure.

[Tom Sutton]

The private sector is now well established with consultancy in this field, but as many FRA's increase the numbers of non uniformed FSO's and finances get tighter. Would there be sufficient financial gain for the private sector?

If the Fire Authority was to completely separate their responsibilities, the operational role and the fire safety role, then they should be able to compete with the private sector, because they do not have the profit motive. With the increased civilianisation of the FS departments then they are heading in that direction but to truly compete they will have to go the whole hog.

[Studius]

I've just flicked through the Fire Futures, National Interests workstream report and it could be nearer than most of us think! But where would the next generation come from with most retired FSO's moving into either the private sector or non uniformed posts.
However the real focus is; could private enforcement be cost effective and impartial?

[kurnal]

three disjointed points-

1-

could private enforcement be cost effective and impartial?

Private garages and MOTs spring to mind. Some problems but generally sound, fixed price set by the Government? But working to prescriptive standards. Special modifications require an engineers report.Hmm.

2- But this type of approach would be such a leap from the general approach to H&S enforcement by the HSE and local Authorities. Why not follow that pattern instead? Take fire safety off the Fire Brigades and give it to the HSE?

3- Whatever they do, it takes a long time for such significant changes to settle in and for problems to arise. At first the new arrangements will be staffed by old timers with traditional values  but as they retire out of the system new blood without the traditional values, training or experience they start to push the boundaries too far. I think this is where we are now with Approved Inspectors and Fire Engineers. There may be trouble ahead.

[Davo]

Cue music

Some good points, well made
In regard to point two Prof, I don't think the current standing of the HSE with the general public and press in particular would help. Everybody respects the FRS and trusts them but following the HSE general approach should work, just keep that bit quiet


davo

[kurnal]

No Davo I dont support it myself. Just that if privatisation is being discussed there are other options. My preferred option would be to leave it as it is but improve career opportunities within the Fire Safety Departments to allow continuity and stop moving people round as soon as they become half competent.

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal you will never achieve your aims if it remains as it is and tinker around the edges. It would have to be a completely separate department answerable to the chief officer or the fire authority.

The HSE would be the last authority I would consider because of their completely reactive approach. For FS to work properly you need a proactive and reactive approach even if its only limited, like it is now, by only inspecting high risk premises and inspecting premises brought to their attention.

[Davo]

Tom

Over the last five years the HSE has lost a lot of staff, with 20% more to come.
The number of planned inspections is well down also.


As the TUC says, you want proactive then employ the staff



davo

[jokar]

All the more reason why it could go to the private sector.  Proactivity means staffing costs, reactivity means than you don't have the staff and the staff cos that are incurred can be picked up by others.

[kurnal]

How would it be funded  Jokar? There would be little gained by fire authorities contracting out their fire enforcement duties as most are cut to the bone and most officers are currently multi tasking. If they did contract out services to the private sector they would need to retain some staff to manage the arrangements.

So that leaves the other option which would be to levy a charge on Responsible Persons for the cost in audits and enforcement. An extra burden on business and public services alike - a non starter at this time in my opinion.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Just to add my thoughts about the direction technical fire safety is heading.

In the eight years I have been serving in fire safety I have seen a reduction of around 50% of officers carrying out technical fire safety in my brigade. As each person retires they are either not replaced or replaced with officers that only do a 50% commitment. I personally work in a team of one. A year ago I spent 100% of my time on fire safety I am now being asked at least one day a week to provide operational cover. by the time have dealt with building regulation consultations, post fire inspections and complaints I have no time left to carry out audits. None ops training has been cut so anybody who does enter fire safety has little or no training. I have heard principle officers asking recently why the service pays Grey Book conditions when they could pay Green Book conditions for its enforcement officers.

Now I really do like the job I do - I see my role as protecting the public and firefighters alike. However, I have seen a general lowering of standards since the introduction of the RRO I would therefore argue that now is the time more, better trained officers who can assist businesses in complying and a deal with the people who are sticking two fingers up to the enforcers. My choice is to keep it in the public sector for one reason only - impartiality.

[kurnal]

For those who have not seen the Fire Futures reports, they can be downloaded here:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/fire/firerescueservice/firefutures/