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

[colin todd]

...to save people from dying in fire Davey, and to be sure that people are saved from dying in fire, Davey.  As for going to Scotland, unless you go on a package coach tour, having spent so long in LFB, you would not find your way beyond Watford Gap.

When multiple lives were lost at Kings Cross, all those protesting about the RRG recommendation were silent in regard to the response, namely the most prescriptive legislation in my lifetime.  Yet there is protestation, about a recommendation to prevent a re occurrence of the greatest loss of life in a fire post Kings Cross.

[nearlythere]

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.

What was this case Dot?

[kurnal]

Dotty is referring to Rosepark NT, if you recall the FRA was found to be inadequate, but it was far from the only factor in that case.

[colin todd]

Almost, to which case are you referring?

Big Al, I dont think Almost was talking about Rosepark. The info on that fire has reached NI by now, even if it had walked there.  Further Big Al, the fact that there were other fire safety deficiencies has no bearing on the fact that, to remind you, it was held that, on the balance of probabilities, a s&s FRA could have prevented the fire (and hence all the deaths) or otherwise could have, by identification of the fire safety deficiencies, prevented some or even all of the deaths.

And people want evidence..... Sheesh!!!!

[Messy]

  As for going to Scotland, unless you go on a package coach tour, having spent so long in LFB, you would not find your way beyond Watford Gap.

.........and therein lies the problem with assuming Colin. I never have been a mouthpiece for the LFB - quite the opposite - and I am in fact a Caledonphile who spends quite a lot of time up norf of the border, both working and exploring the wilderness on my hols.

I am not entirely sure why you are so angry with the LFB or Londoners (or me!), but it would be a huge mistake to consider me as a representative for either group. Plus, why the hell would I drive to Scotland when there's Virgin trains and BA?

Merry Christmas u grumpy bugger!

[lyledunn]

If we want to save people from dying in fires then robust enforcement is the key. Businesses need to know that they have a ponderous responsibility in mitigating fire risk. A good FRA by a competent assessor is obviously of enormous value as a starting point. But what I know of Rosepark and Kings Cross and many other fires, had simple, blatantly obvious precautions been taken, the disasters could have been avoided. The question of risk assessor competence is an important one but if enforcing authorities had the money and resources they should be able to flush out the lame ducks any way. Third party accreditation might end up being applied to a business that in turn could shelter poor quality individual risk assessors. My experience of TPA in the electrical installation industry leaves me less than confident that it would have any significant benefit in the fire safety industry.
Incidentally, recently I sat through a fire safety audit of a members club. Low risk category, I admit, but the inspector didn't get off his fat arse for the full two hours he was there.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Incidentally, recently I sat through a fire safety audit of a members club. Low risk category, I admit, but the inspector didn't get off his fat arse for the full two hours he was there.

My only question is why is the IO auditing a low risk members club anyway.

[colin todd]

If the premises are low risk and fire safety mangement is good, there is no need for him to get off his chair.  Thats the party line.  If people are managing premises well, little need to go tapping the wood of fire doors and counting hinges. I iamgine he was assessing fsm during the two hours and quite right too.

[Phoenix]

How can you tell if a place is well managed unless you at least have a bit of a look round?

[colin todd]

BY looking at the records, talking to the duty holder and viewing the FRA.

[kurnal]

I agree with Phoenix what the RP thinks is happening is often far from the case. Mis perception is a widely recognised and common H&S issue. You can only measure what they say by at least some spot checking. I once had to serve a prohibition notice on a match due to take place that night at a top of the league football club. Records were impeccable, the maintenance manager and ops manager showed me contracts showing full maintenance and checks on the emergency lighting, the records were so good I thought I would do a very quick spot check. The outcome was a full day and only 6 working fittings were found  in what was then a 45000 capacity stadium.

Similarly in the care sector incorrectly configured hold open devices and electronic locks are almost universal, and I estimate 75 % of emergency lighting installed in the last 2 decades  in care homes and clubs is not configured to local sub circuit failure in my experience. You can't take their word for it, these people  don't know what they don't know.

[Messy]

BY looking at the records, talking to the duty holder and viewing the FRA.

That is how I operated when I was an IO.

The first thing was a sit down with the RP to look at records and most importantly discuss fire safety management. If they find the FRA immediately and its not covered in dust, if they understand to an acceptable level the contents and basic management tools such a training and records - then it does give you a heads up on how the premises will me maintained and guide the level of your inspection.

The LFB's policy was if you are satisfied after the chat, then the detail of the inspection is down to the IO's judgement - in some cases, you only need to check one final exit, and that may well be the door you entered the premises. I think that's a reasonable approach for a low risk occupancy. Lets not forget that then (but not so much now I understand) I would have booked an appointment so the RP would know you were coming and why. They would have time to dust off the records, understand the policy/FRA - but most importantly - remove wedges and tidy up the place. So talking to management and where necessary staff, was often a better indicator than walking around the entire (tided up) building

[Dinnertime Dave]

BY looking at the records, talking to the duty holder and viewing the FRA.

That is how I operated when I was an IO

Me too.

That more or less what CFOA guidance says. It only wants the IO to check one safety critical area (staircase, dead end etc.) this to validate your findings form the FRA, if you find problems look at other areas, if not then complement the RP for the standard of biscuits and bid them farewell.

What I tended to do, was was base my walk around on the risk and size of the building. Let's face it it doesn't take long to walk the corridors in most buildings, if you do your homework before you go out, you know where the issues might be.

[kurnal]

The working group who wrote the CFOA guidance to be fair often had little understanding of some of the technical aspects of fire safety installations be they alarms, bs 7273-4, and emergency lighting installations. Not to belittle the iOS etc on the committee but they have been brought up on a tradition of taking the installers certificates as gospel. We know that many installers and maintainers are ignorant of the standards  are unaware of the fire safety implications, I used to find significant issues requiring attention on pretty well every job the first time I visited. Usually from a fairly superficial inspection and basic test.

[colin todd]

Big Al, much as I have little time for CFOA and, indeed, the IOs of Davey's former employer (the cvs of whom we advise employment agencies not to even bother sending to us when we recruit-legal advice in respect of which is that this does not breach equality and diversity law, even though I have always assumed that Davey's chums are a race apart from the Ios of other FRS)), you do them a disservice. It is very arrogant to suggest that they are totally naive compared to consultants.  The party line that Suppers and (much as I hate to admit it) Davey is bang on.  Suppers is not stupid. I am sure he knew competent management when he saw it, and when he needed to look further.