Debate in Scottish parliament regarding TPC of fire risk assessors

[colin todd]

With regard to bureaucracy and paperwork of TPC, the world is littered with bodies created by people such as aircraft maintenance personnel, who thought that paperwork and QMS was a waste of time such was their competence to do the job well without it.

[nearlythere]

Almost here,  BAFE SP 205 happens to be the largest TPC scheme for fire risk assessment companies, and is operated by 3 CBs, but there are two other schemes as I am sure you are aware. Since all are UKAS accredited, they make the grade as far as the RQIA letter (for which that awfully nice Kelsall thought I was largely responsible because of the God-like power he attributes to me) is concerned.  Which scheme has certificated you and do you want to buy me a drink in NI in a couple of weeks time?

Fraid Dot I think you drink too much and would be bad company now that I am nearly good living - during the week.

[colin todd]

Actually, I drink in strict moderation.  On medical advice, I am required to have a double whisky each evening.  I am told not to take a single and not to take much more than the double other than special occasions, which I thought our meeting qualified as.

[kurnal]

I offer the following in response to NT's posting. The difference is this:
 
NT has been assessed as a competent fire risk assessor by a recognised professional institution and appears on their register of fire risk assessors. This gives assurance to the Responsible person / Dutyholder etc that he as an individual has been assessed against published competence criteria. The fire risk assessor registers list competent  Individuals.

Whereas BAFE SP205, Warrington and IFC schemes cover companies , not individuals, and these schemes are further each accredited by UKAS.  These schemes all differ  in detail but include reviews of the company's quality management system in addition to making provision to ensure the staff carrying out assessment are competent, that all assessments are signed off by registered authorised persons and that other elements of a QMS system, including CPD, records  and document control are in place. SP205 is offered by three Certification Bodies and  allows each company to declare its own competence standards for the assessors it employs, though recommends that all should be on one of the person registers. Periodic audits are carried out to ensure that member companies are maintaining these requirements;  during these audits a selection of risk assessors are selected for review, including desk top assessment and accompanying them on an assessment. When I last checked the number of assessors audited under SP205 was  linked to the square root plus 1, so if you are a one man band with three associates two assessors would be assessed, if you have 100 assessors 10 of them would be checked.  Under the Warrington scheme all are checked. From speaking to friends, it appears that geography is the prime consideration so far in selecting which assessors will be checked by the SP205 Certification Bodies.

Hope this helps NT - and as for alcohol a whisky is ok but a pint of bitter is a drink.

  

[kurnal]

With regard to bureaucracy and paperwork of TPC, the world is littered with bodies created by people such as aircraft maintenance personnel, who thought that paperwork and QMS was a waste of time such was their competence to do the job well without it.

Dear old Colin. In your enthusiasm (which I admire even when it is misdirected) you appear to be suggesting that TPC and QMS  are one and the same and make persons more competent. QMS does  make it more likely that incompetent staff will be found out and trained and is essential for any business especially with employees.      On the other hand TPC is a means by which you can demonstrate your competence, it does not in itself make your staff competent. Your example gives the impression that you cannot be competent without it.

[GB]

Colin, I accept that your view of my comment may be distasteful however I would remain behind the comment until proved otherwise.

I agree that the tragic loss of life at Rosepark should never have happened and should be a catalyst for change for the care and wider fire safety sectors.

I don't distinguish between Holyrood and Westminster having had lunch with many MSP's including the First Minister on many occasions. Politicians more often than not table motions as a result of lobbying, it exists and in fact many people make a living out of it. People are paid to lobby MSP's etc by organisations who seek a financial gain - to think that this doesn't exist and could not be the case in this instance is na?ve. It would be an awesome world we lived in if everyone made decisions for the good of the people and not their own gain. I would sign up to that!

I am cynical in the use of TPC's as many use these schemes as a lazy way of marketing, securing business and increasing prices by those that are part of them.

If you are saying Colin that the use of TPC's will only increase competency of FRA providers and not increase prices for the end user and encourage the small business end of the profession to become more engaged by a cost effective, accessible system, then there is a benefit to all whom the TPC is intended to serve, otherwise the system is flawed.

[colin todd]

Big Al, I am so glad to see you are a convert. It hardly seems two years since you sat at a meeting and asked what QMS meant. And now you even teach it to people here.  However, you miss a point, namely that QMS does not so much affect the competence of assessors but the quality of their deliverables.  That is not the same thing. Having attended many TPC audits under the various schemes, either as the auditor or on behalf of UKAS, I have witnessed  many many competent persons' deliverables improved by the findings of a third party audit.

GB, you seem to ignore the relevance of the MSP having Rosepark in his constituency and the lack of closure for many relatives of the deceased.  You also ignore the fact that lobbying can have the purpose of making the world a better place, rather than making pots of money selling FRAs.

[GB]

Colin, you may indeed be correct in what I am unaware of, as that list of things is very long!

I have modified my initial reply to your last post - perhaps one day I will also have one of those meetings with you over a drop of the amber nectar where I would be able to share information with you which may shed a different light in respect to the reasons for my suggestion of lobbying for a competitive edge rather than increasing the competency of the profession.

My initial issue is not one of increasing competency for the good of all stakeholders, it is making sure that any move within the industry is accessible to all with the objective of increasing safety and well being rather than to simply eliminate competition by bureaucratic means.

I once again allude to my earlier point in that a more robust CPD system and availability must precede any movement to restrict trade and competition under the guise of competency.

[kurnal]

Having attended many TPC audits under the various schemes, either as the auditor or on behalf of UKAS, I have witnessed  many many competent persons' deliverables improved by the findings of a third party audit.

I believe you trained the  SP205 CBs in fire risk assessment as well Colin. I know you too well and respect your motives too much to suggest there might be vested interests at stake here! For any lesser soul I might well be drawn to such a conclusion!
Seriously if you are auditing SP205  please let me know by PM which of the CBs  you audit for, as this might well tip the scales. One of my concerns from the outset was that I wished to be audited by a competent fire risk assessor turned auditor, not by a QMS auditor with a little training in fire risk assessment. You know the rest.

[colin todd]

Big Al, you can have faith in any of the BAFE SP 205 CBs, as none of their auditors are purely QMS guys with little training in fire risk assessment. If you require further information, give me a ring, as I type enough all day and don't want the bother of trying to explain all to you in a PM.

[colin todd]

GB, I find your arguments compelling, and will be writing to the Department of Transport demanding that they stop this stupid driving licence nonsense.  It is a clear restriction on people's personal freedom.  I once new a young tearaway who always told people he could drive (and frequently did) but added the rider, "I don't have a licence like".  And look at  these people having accidents when they do have licences.  After that, I will be writing to the HSE demanding that anyone should be allowed to work on gas appliances. So long as they think they are competent that should be fine.  No more sheckles in the pockets of Gas Safe after that.

I see a whole new vista opening up after that.  Disband UKAS, as they are a UK monopoly.  (and why is there only ONE monopolies and mergers commission if they are so against monopolies?)  Why should accredited CBs have any preference.  I could get my ISO 9001 from a whole lot of unaccredited CBs, to whom you just pay your money send off your quality manual and you get certification.  None of this red tape visits to my premises checking files and such like beaurocracy.

And when Davey takes us out of Europe, we can get rid of the CPR.  Why should manufacturers have construction products tested at huge expense by a Notified Body, just so you and Mrs GB can be safe at home.  All they are doing is costing you money for more expensive products when you go down to Wicks to build a playroom for the wee GBs.

Yep, the Sheriff got it wrong.  Anyone should have been allowed to carry out the FRA for Rosepark.  I will be contacting the IFE and the FIA in the morning, advising them to withdraw their current moral support for this motion at Holyrood, and its restriction to trade. In fact, I will demand that the IFE register immediately the 50% or so of applicants who failed to be registered. (Statistical fact.)

Then I will wake up and smell the coffee.

[GB]

As you will obviously agree using your own analogy that the DoT will verify that having a drivers licence ensures that no-one speeds or drives carelessy or are killed by drunk drivers!

I take heart that a varying opinion from people that post on this forum is welcomed and that dialogue is encouraged so that diverse opinions are merged to find new and better ways of doing things in our industry.

Heaven forbid that if anyone disagrees with us we should try and belittle the person rather than form a constructive conversation and build a better world!

Now I am smelling the coffee!!

[colin todd]

Well, I hope it is Costa, as they use competent fire risk assessors.

[Firescot]

I have just watched this and it appears nothing is changing in the near future.

[colin todd]

Not a bad outcome.  The regulatory review group is to be instructed to consider the competence of fire risk assessors.