REPORT OF THE REGULATORY REVIEW GROUP ON THE FIRE (SCOTLAND) ACT

[colin todd]

This report has now been issued. It is superbly written and easy to read.  As the Act is very close to the FSO in England and Wales (and is more or less identical to the legislation in NI), it is worth a read by everyone.  It can be downloaded at

 http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0049/00490043.pdf


A very important series of recommendations apply to the matter of fire risk assessors, namely as follows:

The Scottish Government should introduce a requirement for third party fire risk
assessors to be certificated or registered to ensure competency and to help
business receive a satisfactory and consistent service. This could in the first
instance focus on those offering assessments/assessors working in high risk
sectors.
A Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment should be completed to help
assess the impact of options, including certification, to ensure that all costs and
benefits are considered.
 In the shorter term, the Scottish Government and SFRS should work to promote
the benefits of third party certification and how to select competent fire risk
assessors. This should include discussions with local authorities as to whether
they would be able to assist in promoting awareness of the Act.

[kurnal]

As a counter to Colin's predictable enthusiasm for the report I wish to make the following observations:

1- The panel included a representative of BAFE but no other certification bodies, professional bodies or representatives of private industry were represented. The recommendation in respect of certification/ registration does not appear to me to be justified by the data or information in the findings of the report.
2- Of the 315 reported risk assessments under review only 29 (9.2%) were carried out by a third party assessor, and there is no data available to identify which of the 315 these were. I would argue that The imposition of certification / registration schemes , based on current figures, would impose an additional burden on all fire risk asessment businesses whilst only affecting less than 10% of fire risk assessments.
3- It is arguable whether SP205 guarantees a competent fire risk assessment. I have evidence that it does not and can give a number of specific examples. I believe that the effectiveness of the scheme is inversely proportional to the size of the member organisation.
4- The report itself identifies that there have been no successful prosecutions against fire risk assessors in Scotland for failing to identify deficiencies in fire safety in premises. These are powerful sanctions that have never been used. Where is the evidence of a problem?

I would suggest that the report is deficient in failing to provide evidence for such a major recommendation which would have a major impact on the industry but with an insignificant payback, based on current statistics.
  

[William 29]

To be honest I still think some form of 3rd party certification, or recognised register is the way forward so that the duty holders can at least have a bench mark for competence. Trust me when the time comes for an FRA to be questioned or challenged you need something more than your IFE cert and fire service college modules to show you are competent.

[Fishy]

As a counter to Colin's predictable enthusiasm for the report I wish to make the following observations:

1- The panel included a representative of BAFE but no other certification bodies, professional bodies or representatives of private industry were represented. The recommendation in respect of certification/ registration does not appear to me to be justified by the data or information in the findings of the report.
2- Of the 315 reported risk assessments under review only 29 (9.2%) were carried out by a third party assessor, and there is no data available to identify which of the 315 these were. I would argue that The imposition of certification / registration schemes , based on current figures, would impose an additional burden on all fire risk asessment businesses whilst only affecting less than 10% of fire risk assessments.
3- It is arguable whether SP205 guarantees a competent fire risk assessment. I have evidence that it does not and can give a number of specific examples. I believe that the effectiveness of the scheme is inversely proportional to the size of the member organisation.
4- The report itself identifies that there have been no successful prosecutions against fire risk assessors in Scotland for failing to identify deficiencies in fire safety in premises. These are powerful sanctions that have never been used. Where is the evidence of a problem?

I would suggest that the report is deficient in failing to provide evidence for such a major recommendation which would have a major impact on the industry but with an insignificant payback, based on current statistics.
  

Absolutely agree.  I can't imagine that any regulatory impact assessment would conclude that there's a safety-related case for mandatory 'approval', and in any case certification only (hopefully) reduces the probability of unsafe risk assessments being made - it doesn't eliminate it.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing - just that I cannot understand why any cost-conscious Government would mandate it, unless they had overwhelming evidence that it was a problem?

[William 29]

 

Absolutely agree.  I can't imagine that any regulatory impact assessment would conclude that there's a safety-related case for mandatory 'approval', and in any case certification only (hopefully) reduces the probability of unsafe risk assessments being made - it doesn't eliminate it.

I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad thing - just that I cannot understand why any cost-conscious Government would mandate it, unless they had overwhelming evidence that it was a problem?

That's just the point, I think there is good evidence there is a problem, certainly in my experience.

[wee brian]

There might be good evidence but it isn't in the report.

[colin todd]

There is plenty of evidence wee B, so they did not need to burden the report with heaps of anecdotal evidence, since there is plenty around, of which they were made aware.  This includes 14 dead bodies and the recommendations of a Scottish Sheriff (like an English judge but with the benefit of a better education and a more socialist and caring society) on how to prevent the same happening again.  They pointed to the evidence of IFE applications-is that not evidence.  They were aware of penalties including prison sentences (in England) imposed on those who had fire risk assessments carried out by third parties (which by the way continue to grow in number- the Court of Appeal rejecting an appeal against a suspended sentence only last week).

Wake up and smell the coffee, Big Al.  England will catch on one day, but we are both probably too long in the tooth to ever see it.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Whilst I think 3rd party accredition is important. I don't think it will happen for two reasons. Firstly, the government don't want to burden businesses with more red tape and secondly I don't need a 3rd party accredited person to carry out my H&S risk assessments so why fire, what's the difference?

Having said that I have been seeing more and more notices from FRS questioning the competence of the person doing the FRA.

[Owain]

Firstly, the government don't want to burden businesses with more red tape

This is the Scottish government, not the UK one. Different political persuasion and different attitude to business, government and regulation.

[kurnal]

As one of the gang of 4 who drafted the initial FIA proposal that developed into SP205 I smelled the coffee from the outset Colin but found the current blend not to my taste. It will never affect me as I am no longer practising in any case so I no longer have any particular axe to grind.

As you probably know I always rail against those who tell me what I should think and what is good for me. I want to hear an argument to support the case and will make up my own mind. That was the reason for my initial brief response to your wholehearted endorsement of the report. Others agree with me that at least one finding is not justified by the content of the report. I for one see this as a weakness of the report. Somehow  they have arrived at a destination without travelling part of the route.

Third party certification is a good thing even if we disagree over the model. Whether it should be compulsory is a matter of argument. If the other part of the recommendation- in respect of education and publicity- were in place, together with the other missing link- robust enforcement especially in Scotland - then perhaps compulsion would be unnecessary.  


  

[wee brian]

I'm with Kurnal.  The report lets itself down by failing to evidence its recommendations.

There's an interesting list of inadequate risk assessments at the back of the report. It might have helped if these showed who had done them (in house or consultant/ tpc consultant). Although you would need a bigger sample size.

[GB]

I am a bit disappointed that there were not more stakeholders from service user bodies who would ultimately have to pay the significantly increased costs associated with 3rd party accredited assessors.

Only the FSB were represented with the rest being government bodies or those with a financial interest in 3rd party accreditation.

This approach will simply remove a great number of FRA assessors who are capable and competent to carry out FRA's within many suitable sectors due to the burden of the accreditation process and lead to further price increases to the end user by large 3rd party accredited companies who promote 3rd party as if they never in their life were non accredited! Unless of course they go and work for the big boys!

[colin todd]

Suppers when you said THE government, to which government were you referring?  THE government requires sprinklers in new care homes and sheltered housing-it is only elsewhere in the UK that it is not required.  THE government requires ARC connections from hospitals, res care and shopping centres.  It is only elsewhere in the UK it is not required.  THE government requires 60 minute doors to protected staircases (though I confess I am not sure why). THE government is unlikely to give a fig about academic RIAs, manipulated by civil servants in London with nothing better to do.

By the way, THE government probably knows that the term is not ACCREDITED but CERTIFICATED.  The term accreditation is applied to UKAS schemes for certification bodies.

It is merely to be hoped that THE government, listens to the advice of stakeholders including, as someone pointed out, the Federation of Small Businesses, the rep of whom on the RRG seemed a sensible  and intelligent sort of girl.

[lyledunn]

Well before you go down the route of third party accreditation, you could do worse than look at the debacle that exists in the electrical installation industry. UKAS registered accreditation bodies like NICEIC, NAPIT, ELECSA, Stromatolites and even BS falling over themselves to sign up any old dross that can leave condensate on a mirror.
I joined the NICEIC thirty years ago and wore the badge with pride. They had an austere and robust vetting system but that was thrown to the four winds when they became the voracious commercial enterprise that they are today. I pay my annual fee only because a small number of clients require membership of one of these money-grabbing bodies.
Now every Tom, Dick and Harry are members. Competence? Of little or no concern, top priority is ?450 plus vat please!

[Messy]

Third party certification is a good thing even if we disagree over the model. Whether it should be compulsory is a matter of argument. If the other part of the recommendation- in respect of education and publicity- were in place, together with the other missing link- robust enforcement especially in Scotland - then perhaps compulsion would be unnecessary.  

Top post. Couldn't agree more.

I will struggle to get on any register as my employer will not release any FRAs or agree to site visits. Does this mean I won't be able to travel and work north of Hadrian's wall, but will be able to down souf?

I can see the value of 3rd party certification for freelance type consultancy staff/companies, (such as Colin's) where work is being sought from business, organisations  and community groups. But I only work in house. I have proved competent to my employer and have to maintain my CPD to continue my role. I only work delivering fire safety on company property, so if they are happy to continue making sure I achieve certain aims to maintain competency, why would I need legislation to insist on a 3rd party assessment as well?