Scottish Government recognises the benefits of third party certification

[Tom W]

It seems you have ignored everyone elses points apart from Colins!

Does your Fire Risk Assessing side of the company http://www.warringtonfire.net/2/95/default.html only have one risk assessor?

That is all you have registered on the scheme so I'm guessing you only have one consultant?

Piglet I name at least 4 people I respond to in my posts Wiz DaveyH, Fishy and CT please do read them again.

Strange question and very out of context of the current debate, let me know who you are and who you are working for and I will give you an answer as it seems like you have a hidden agenda. Alternatively you can fill the blanks yourself like the only one I respond to on this forum. (According to you)

Apologies, but it seems like although mentioning them you are not listening to them.

My point was "practice what you preach" don't get me wrong, third party cert has its benefits but I was wondering why your risk assessing side of the company hasn't got on board with it? I think its a fair enough question.

[Speyside]

piglet

My opinion is that I know the value of good certification and I know there is some real dross third party schemes out there. I think that some opinions are tarnished by some of the alarm and extinguisher schemes and cert bodies who run them. I am not going to change my opinion re the value of third party to the end user but I am taking note of what they say. I am also taking note of end user groups who want something in place to help their members. I am not surprised at all that some of the posters on this site don’t see value in 3rd party, it will always be voluntary and therefore it is their choice to have it or not. Unless they are missing out on contracts as a result of not having it, then it isn’t value for money but just a grudge purchase.

The short answer to your question is they are as far as I am aware, using only certificated competent assessors on a subcontract basis to do the fire risk assessment work. But as I work for the CB and they work for the guarantor company I don’t know and can’t comment with any accuracy. The two companies are very separate and have to remain so, as the relationship is subject to audit by UKAS. In terms of certificating assessors from a guarantor company there are extra measures needed to demonstrate impartiality of assessment but the standard does allow it to be done as long as the processes are auditable. Hence the benefit and assurance of having the checkers checked by a government approved body.

[Tom W]

I wouldn't want you to change your opinion, I too think 3rd party certification is good.

Its just interesting to know that unless your other company (the risk assessing one) is using http://www.warringtoncertification.com/fracs/individual-register.html Dr Bob and the like, they are not using subcontractors that have been through your scheme, thats all.

[Speyside]

My understanding is that they only use ‘competent’ fire risk assessors that have UKAS accredited certification. I am sorry I can’t add any more as I just don’t know those details, perhaps you should ring and ask for clarification.

[colin todd]

Speyside, as always you miss the point. Calm down and listen. You have a good scheme, I have never heard a bad word ever said about it. You do yourself a disservice by calling it barely adequate-it is fine. Thats great.  But in this day and age, no one will recognize only one scheme. It is a pain being first, and frustrating.  We were the first consultants to receive BAFE SP 203 but no one could specify a BAFE SP 203 consultant as we would have had a monopoly. Third party certification is great, but there needs to be more people in the business of offering UKAS-accredited COMPANY schemes. It will happen, it just takes time.  It is being worked on.
Person certification is another matter.  It is legitimately the role of professional bodies as well as TPCBs. It complements company schemes.  You put competent persons together with QMS and bingo you have what everyone is looking for.  Under a company scheme, if the CB is not too happy with the competence of the persons who do the work, registered or not, it can take its own view and use its own techniques to determine competence.
It will all work in the end, it just needs time.
 
 

[wee brian]

A much quicker approach would be to do what the H&S industry are doing.

http://www.oshcr.org/

Its a register of people who are professionally qualified and have promised to be good consultants.

I suppose potential clients could just ask for qualified people and ask them to be good but where's the fun in that?

Brilliant 

[Speyside]

Colin by the tone and message in your last post it looks like you have done the calming down. It isn’t hard to get your points when you make them so offensively and quite often for dramatic effect. Your last post is much more respectful and if I might say it, is more dignified than the cheap shots you often fire out. I have never been agitated or distressed just bemused and amused. So now you have calmed down perhaps you could try comprehending and also acknowledge your double standards.

I think this is what you are saying ‘Accredited third party only for the company and none accredited will do for the individuals’. Are you suggesting a two tier system? If so why?

It seems you are also saying that the current professional body registers will support the BAFE company scheme. I suspected all along that the BAFE scheme would be a tick box exercise and it seems like you are teeing the FIA fire risk assessors up nicely, with your get on any register message. How can an accredited scheme rely on none accredited competence assessment? It is fundamentally wrong and doesn’t make sense to water down a scheme so much that the competence element doesn’t hold any value.

I am frustrated, not at being first but at the industry for being so slow at doing something so weak that it will mean nothing and will do nothing for the RP. I have spoken with senior members of the FIA and they have all admitted to me that they have members that are doing fire risk assessments that just shouldn’t be doing them as they are not even near to be being competent. Don’t you think the industry has had time and plenty of it; October 2006 is a long long way back and your so called answer is a long way forward, 18 months was mentioned at the FIA conference. If I was in the FIA I would be asking questions about how exactly the quality differentiator suggested by the council to BAFE is going to work. It isn’t a quality differentiator in the format I think it is going to take, so what would be the point in having it? Don’t just give them a token badge, set a real quality standard one that differentiates them from the rest and more importantly offers the RP genuine assurances.

Not after a monopoly, never asked for it never wanted it. Just after a level playing field of independent accredited certification for companies and individuals on a voluntary basis that can be sign posted for the RP to help marginalize the cowboys and improve standards.

Regardless of what you say there is support for this amongst several bodies and organizations, obviously they are wrong as a collective and you’re right as an individual; but hey a difference of opinion is good.

[kurnal]

A much quicker approach would be to do what the H&S industry are doing.

http://www.oshcr.org/

Its a register of people who are professionally qualified and have promised to be good consultants.

I suppose potential clients could just ask for qualified people and ask them to be good but where's the fun in that?

Brilliant  

Is it brilliant? It is interesting that they are listing 722 persons competent to carry out fire risk assessments.

Have they pulled the rug from under our feet? They have more competent fire risk assessors on their lists than the current 4 fire industry registers combined but no measure of competence whatsoever in the fire field. And no fire industry bodies recognised in the member organisations.

To me its a disgrace and a travesty and I hope Sir Ken and the Competence Council are putting pressure on the OHSR to review their criteria.

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal I fully agree with you that's the kind of situation I would like to see for Fire Risk Assessors, one register, one standard with many approved providers. I also agree with your reservations and let industry decide on the standard, also I am sure the end users would agree.

[Tom W]

I have spoken with senior members of the FIA and they have all admitted to me that they have members that are doing fire risk assessments that just shouldn’t be doing them as they are not even near to be being competent

If I was in the FIA I would be asking questions about how exactly the quality differentiator suggested by the council to BAFE is going to work. It isn’t a quality differentiator in the format I think it is going to take, so what would be the point in having it? Don’t just give them a token badge, set a real quality standard one that differentiates them from the rest and more importantly offers the RP genuine assurances.

Regardless of what you say there is support for this amongst several bodies and organizations, obviously they are wrong as a collective and you’re right as an individual; but hey a difference of opinion is good.

Speyside, Any FIA registered Fire Risk Assessment company must of signed up to the FIA Code of Conduct.

Do I have it right that you think the BAFE scheme will be a "token badge" You are calling a UKAS stamp "A token badge"?! The BAFE scheme has been written and commented on by a number of extremely qualifed Fire Risk Assessors. It shows great depth of knowledge. Who wrote your scheme?

About the "support for this" comment, I think you'll find "this" means third party certification not neccesarily your scheme. They will show the same support for a BAFE scheme.

[Davo]

Prof

Strange, the 11 listed for my area do not give qualificatiopn details, and many of them don't even list assessment as one of their areas!
Methinks it is the register at fault!!!!!!!

I know one of them, an ex Federation H & S advisor 

davo

[colin todd]

Simon, The doctor's practice you go to might be ISO 9000.  If the ISO 9000 is from a non-UKAS accredited CB, it may not be worth the paper its printed on.  The Doctor will be registered with the General Medical Council.  They dont really need UKAS to tell them how to do their registration cos they have been doing it for years. Its what professional bodies do.

If the doctor suggests you are a little hard of hearing, tell her the old Scots saying, "There's nane sae deef as those that dinna want tae hear."

[kurnal]

  They dont really need UKAS to tell them how to do their registration cos they have been doing it for years. Its what professional bodies do.

I think that is irelevant Colin. Just because (only some of them) have been around for years this does not mean that they are good or competent at what they do. Or would not benefit from an outside impartial overview. The IFE is an old institution but no individual officer has served for more than a comparative few years.

Fire Brigades have likewise been around for years. Does this make them perfect and above scrutiny? Would they not benefit from an independent audit of standards, consistency and quality?

[Tom W]

Its surely a bigger picture though. One of a company producing quality. So why haven't all these companies got ISO9001? Is it because they don't need it so they are not going to get it?

We have 9001 and its a great help to ensure we are quality. Not just the risk assessors but the customer services, accounts, procedures. Everything is documented and audited to ensure a good service.

So 3rd Party is about proving a good service. But only looks at the one task.

[Speyside]

Simon, The doctor's practice you go to might be ISO 9000.  If the ISO 9000 is from a non-UKAS accredited CB, it may not be worth the paper its printed on.  The Doctor will be registered with the General Medical Council.  They dont really need UKAS to tell them how to do their registration cos they have been doing it for years. Its what professional bodies do.

If the doctor suggests you are a little hard of hearing, tell her the old Scots saying, "There's nane sae deef as those that dinna want tae hear."

Colin take yer pick of these auld Scottish sayings!

‘Yer bum's oot the windae’


‘An ill-willy cow should hae short horns’


‘As true as Biglam's cat crew, and the cock rocked the cradle’


‘A wise man gets learning frae them that hae nane o' their ain’

‘Say well's good but do well is better’

But I love this new Scottish saying from some wise old Scot talking about the existing fire risk assessor registers

‘There may be a need for some form of leveling of the playing fields,’

What about this for a suggestion BS 17024 and BS 45011 with UKAS accreditation for all schemes, as a minimum requirement.

There has to be a good reason why you think one of these standards is essential but the other isn’t. I think you are saying that the British standard for bodies operating certification of persons doesn’t apply to the professional bodies because they’re good guys and they do that sort of thing and have done for some time so lets not make them do it properly.  Kurnal has it spot on and without this leveling the two tier system could actually become a three tier system. Self certification …….anyone!

 Piglet that’s what your FIA code of conduct is, self certification and I wrote all our schemes on the back of a fag packet down the pub. You need to check out ISO guide 67, UKAS just check you’re doing what you say you are; the level of what you do is set by the CB or in the BAFE case some well qualified fire risk assessors.