Private Sector Enforcement of Technical Fire Safety

[SamFIRT]

Can I suggest that it is irrelevant whether a person is paid Green or Grey book rates for their work within a FRS. The cost to the public is the same. Their business rates or council tax. Now granted these could go down if FRS staff were paid less. But equally the rates could.... and probably would..... stay the same and other services provided by the FRS be maintained. I.e. fire fighting, rescue and investigation. Best value!? 

Just a thought?

[Dinnertime Dave]

Sam,

The austerity measures are about to save 81 billion and my council tax won`t go down a penny.  if a Grey book inspecting officer (watch Manager) is paid 32k and a Green book non op fso is paid 24k there is 8k for starters without considering pension contributions.   

[CivvyFSO]

The idea I thought was to prevent, so to adopt a HSE type of approach of kicking people when they are down seems to fly in the face of Fire Rescue ethos.

Why does it need to be a "Fire and Rescue ethos"? The F&RS Act and the RRFSO are two completely different things. Firefighting/rescue and enforcement of legislation are also two very separate things.

I am not talking about kicking people when they are down. If we find conditions where relevant persons are being put at risk, The Order states that it is an offence and as enforcers of that order (Not as a Fire Authority under the F&R Services Act) we should take it to an appropriate conclusion. If every speed camera just sent a letter to your house 'advising' you to slow down they would not work as well as they do. (Probably a debatable example but lets not start that)

The legislation puts the on the RP to prevent risk from fire, not the enforcing authority. By robust enforcement, and coming down hard on the worst offenders, it makes other RP's take notice without the need for them to actually be inspected.

Take the New Look prosecution for example. How far do you think that message reached throughout the commercial sector? How many managers/directors will have pointed out or thought "this could happen to us" and then went and got their house in order? What about the landlord who received a prison term? It won't fix all of them, but in my opinion one good publicised prosecution will do more good nationwide than 100 inspections.

Don't forget that FRS' are going to be stretched for resources, we simply won't have the resources for what would be considered a reinspection regime. We will attend complaints, follow up fires, and maybe do some themed inspections if patterns are seen in certain trades or areas. Just like the HSE.

[CivvyFSO]

Sam,

The austerity measures are about to save 81 billion and my council tax won`t go down a penny.  if a Grey book inspecting officer (watch Manager) is paid 32k and a Green book non op fso is paid 24k there is 8k for starters without considering pension contributions.   

And don't forget, a WM will have had lots of money spent on initial training, management training, all the stuff that goes with being a watch manager. Why would you THEN take them OUT of the role they are trained for, and train them up in a different one?

It is like training someone up to be a barrister, then when they have done a few years in a courtroom train them up to be IT support, stick them behind a desk but keep paying them the barristers wage.

I have been doing the job a number of years now, they haven't paid to train me in firefighting, BA, incident command, hazmat, fire investigation, line rescue etc etc etc. I have been trained in fire safety, and I will possibly still be doing this job in 20 years time. In the grey book way of doing things you would have had possibly had about 5 different grey book WM's popping in and out of this one post, and just as they get good at the role they get shipped back out.

[Dinnertime Dave]

And don't forget, a WM will have had lots of money spent on initial training, management training, all the stuff that goes with being a watch manager. Why would you THEN take them OUT of the role they are trained for, and train them up in a different one?

It is like training someone up to be a barrister, then when they have done a few years in a courtroom train them up to be IT support, stick them behind a desk but keep paying them the barristers wage.

I have been doing the job a number of years now, they haven't paid to train me in firefighting, BA, incident command, hazmat, fire investigation, line rescue etc etc etc. I have been trained in fire safety, and I will possibly still be doing this job in 20 years time. In the grey book way of doing things you would have had possibly had about 5 different grey book WM's popping in and out of this one post, and just as they get good at the role they get shipped back out.
[/quote]

Good points, should I be worried with three years left, or should I be preparing to do risk assessments on my days off. I would like to think that with 8 years as an inspecting officer it might take a while to completely replace me. But there would be a few people who have retired on a pension who would quite happily seek re employment. Me included

[kurnal]

[I have been doing the job a number of years now, they haven't paid to train me in firefighting, BA, incident command, hazmat, fire investigation, line rescue etc etc etc. I have been trained in fire safety, and I will possibly still be doing this job in 20 years time. In the grey book way of doing things you would have had possibly had about 5 different grey book WM's popping in and out of this one post, and just as they get good at the role they get shipped back out.

That is exactly right Civvy but I think you are unusual amongst your peers. What is needed above all is a career path and structure in Fire Safety Enforcement within the Fire Authorities. Most are only looking at the short term at the moment by employing former uniformed officers into a non uniformed role. By doing so they are taking on competent and experienced staff so they do not have to consider training and development. They appear to be saving money but they are not- the savings claimed are exaggerated because they are not investing in the training and development of people to make the thing sustainable in the long term.

The problem is that when  these people retire for the second time in 10 years or so there will be a black hole so deep and difficult to resolve that some bright spark will then decide the easiest way out is to shift the problem by privatising fire safety or handing it over to approved inspectors or the like.  

There are so many advantages in the Fire Authorities retaining direct responsibility for fire safety enforcement. Its all about joined up thinking. One body responsible for  education, prevention, intervention and enforcement. Split it up and it will become unwieldy, unreactive and inefficient.

[CivvyFSO]

I quite agree with you Kurnal. Whereas I could create a body and effectively enforce the RRFSO, fire safety knowledge helps firefighters just as much as knowledge of fire behaviour helps fire safety. It would always be beneficial to have that link.

FRS' have the knowledge of where the fires and the risks are, by keeping enforcement and prevention within the FRS' remit then they can help themselves. This is where we differ from the HSE, as the HSE don't have another section that have to respond to incidents in the same way a FRS does, so the actual risk in any specific area/trade does not impact on the HSE's resources in the same way.

[Tom Sutton]

 But there would be a few people who have retired on a pension who would quite happily seek re employment. Me included

I would disagree with you Dave, its not what happen in my old brigade and they all went on individual contracts not grey book conditions.

I applaud most of to days contributors but how would you achieve your aims?

[SamFIRT]

Questions . (Rhetorical ones)   

1.   Should operational fire staff have an understanding of Fire safety matters?
2.   Would that information make them better operational Ff’s / Officers (Managers)?
3.   Would a senior or potential Principal Officer have a better understanding of FS if that person works in the department and therefore make better organisational decisions due to experience gained?
4.   Is the data on the origin and cause of fires as recorded in IRS accurate?
5.   If not would that improve with better academic and or managerial training?
6.   Would it be improved due to knowledge sharing between departments?
7.   Is that best served by having a disparate organisation or a knowledge sharing symbiotic synergistic one?

My personal answer is there is room for both. Grey and green book staff (both academically recruited and re-employed operational staff). But it is only an opinion and it will only work if the different sections work together and apply knowledge sharing. I know I have made better decisions; operationally, managerially and FI wise…. due to the time I served in FS.

Just an opinion….. Doesn’t make it a fact 

[Phoenix]

I look forward to the day that our FRSs are

"knowledge sharing symbiotic synergistic"

but I wont hold my breath.

Stu

[Speyside]

The Fire Futures review and the cost cutting measures will have a dramatic affect on the fire services ability to enforce the RRO. To be honest they are only scratching the surface now and if they have to move enforcers to frontline duties or let inspection officers go they won’t have the resources to enforce. I firmly believe some forces will only have the staff to do fire safety audits after a fire, and hence prosecutions are likely to be the way they enforce in the future. I spoke with a Scottish fire service enforcer recently and he suggested that ‘a high profile fine will be needed to send a message out’.  That coming from a Scottish FRS is of concern as they are very tolerant compared to the English.

The answer is to make the enforcement process more efficient targeting the unsafe and leaving the safe alone. Currently the risk profile means care homes and high risk sleeping accommodation get seen annually and less risky offices factories etc are left well alone. Annually only 5% of known properties are inspected in Scotland and many of those are repeat visits. Those duty holders who can demonstrate good fire safety standards and operate systems to maintain those standards should be left alone, for the FRS to concentrate on those with disregard for fire safety. A care home with very good management systems shouldn’t have an annual inspection regardless of its risk profile; it just takes an officer’s time to confirm what they already know. If a way could be developed of assuring the fire safety management of a building via an independent third party, this would allow the FRS to focus and target the poor and leave the diligent to get on with it. By having a focused efficient approach standards are raised and value for money is achieved.

[kurnal]

How about a National Database of those premises that have had a fire risk assessment conducted by a competent person being a member of a UKAS accredited register of fire risk assessors?
Could this be an indication  that such premises are at least making an attemt to manage fire safety in an effective way and thus do not require the supervision of the fire authority under a routine inspection program?

[Davo]

Prof

That would only work if the RP took notice and did something about it

davo

[Midland Retty]

How about a National Database of those premises that have had a fire risk assessment conducted by a competent person being a member of a UKAS accredited register of fire risk assessors?
Could this be an indication  that such premises are at least making an attemt to manage fire safety in an effective way and thus do not require the supervision of the fire authority under a routine inspection program?

I'm not sure that could work,for the reasons already discussed sometime ago about the pit falls of accreditation for risk assessors.

My view is that the Fire Authorities should retain responsibility for the enforcement of Fire Safety Legislation (along with the other enforcing authorities states in the RR(FS)O)

"Civillian" officers (we are all civillian unless we work for the military by the way) are a good thing because they tend to stop in post much longer than their uniformed counter parts, whom, as already mentioned, get moved after becoming competent. This means that they become more knowledgeable and experienced in their role.

Also I think with the way things are beginning to pan out, Fire Authorities are having to smarten their act up a little, and be more proportional and professional.

Alot more training in legal practice, fire risk assessment, and on the legislation itself seems to be taking place in alot of brigades to ensure that when prosecutions go to court the cases are water tight, and can't be undermined by a savvy defence barrister.

There are an increasing amount of barristers out whom are beginning to get to grips with the RR(FS)O, and I can see that alot more cases will be challenged in future, which will drive, I believe, even more training for Inspectors.
 
For Shire brigades the problem is that their officers have to be multi-rolled, multi-disciplined animals, acting as flexi duty ops commanders, as well as duty fire safety officers, and thus it could be argued their knowledge and experience is less than that of an inspecting officer who purely undertakes fire safety work.

Its a difficult one to answer but I dont feel the Lib/Con administration is happy to push things like this out to the private sector.

[Tom Sutton]

Its a difficult one to answer but I don't feel the Lib/Con administration is happy to push things like this out to the private sector.

If the FRS can do it as cost effectively as the private sector then there is no need to.

Speyside I think your suggestions are the second stage the first is to make Technical Fire Safety departments more cost effective and be able to compete with the private sector.