Civilianise enforcement- you know it makes sense

[Jim Scott]

So it would appear that fire safety is back in the hands of the Home Office.

Will that have in impact on the matters discussed here?

Thoughts?

[Mike Buckley]

Depends on whether they want to put enforcement under PC Plod!

[Jim Scott]

Its only a matter of time!

I have known of investigations under the FRSA 2004 investigated by the police.  Equally the CPS have now taken a case under the RR(FS)O.

Fire safety inspectors will be carrying handcuffs soon! 

[colin todd]

I really dont care who enforces fire safety legislation, but Tam is right, the world has become too complicated for fire-fighters to dabble for a bit on their way up.

However, I am selling off the firm's BMW fleet, as, thinking about Big Al's posting, I now realise to my horror that the damn cars were designed by engineers.  These chaps should never have been allowed to design your 4 series either Big Al.  These fellars have never been to a road accident in their lives.  They have never carried out extrication techniques like we firemen.  They have never seen the effects of an airbag explode (except in a classroom populated by academics).  They have never seen Derbyshire farmers human behavior when they get behind the wheel.  They have never seen crumple zones work on the motorway. I am now seeking to source a company car fleet comprising cars designed and MoT tested by a motorway policeman, pottering in the traffic department, pending a job coming up in CID.

I once sat in front of two Lancs FRS chaps who were pontificating about the merits or otherwise of intumescent strips required by one of their colleagues ENs. Now always deferrential to the English FRS, I asked them for the number of years operation firefighting experience they had.  Naturally, I could only idolise their 35 years combined experience.  I asked them how many fires they had been to, in which an intumescent strip had blown.  There was a long silence.  Then one piped up that he had seen one ONCE.  The other puffed himself up with pride and he said he had seen as many as 2 but it could even be THREE.

Tam is right.  I said in the 70s all this crap about knowing nothing about fire safety unless you have driven a red lorry was bunkum  It was bunkum then; its megabunkum now.

Would you like to hear more anecdotes.

[kurnal]

Colin don't overlook the very comprehensive vehicle crash testing and type approvals process in place in the motor industry for new cars and spare parts.. Every model is engineered crash tested and type approved. On the other hand buildings are designed and fire engineered and approved on the nod often with no effective scoutiny of the fire engineering design by AIs or fire services. At the age of 3 years cars are subject to a detailed MOT test, LGVs and coaches more so. Then VOSA staff investigate serious events.  There is therefore no analogy there with regard to fire safety enforcement.

I am more interested in who you see being responsible for enforcement if the proces is civilianised, whether you think  this role should stop with the fire services, and the level of competence required and how and by whom this should be delivered. The current audit process based on the CFOA guidance does not appear to me to demand a deep  level of underpinning knowledge (imo!) more of a box ticking exercise with little technical evaluation of stanrdards and I see that as a huge weakness.

Work needs to be done on  enforcement to plan adequately for the future provision, a career path needs to be defined and competences defined and delivered.

I wonder if anything is happening further nationally to promote and support the aspirations expressed in your avatar?

[William 29]

Would you like to hear more anecdotes.

Yes please, I find them entertaining in-between reading the old fire service manuals. 

[Mike Buckley]

Following Colin's analogy, the problem is that the cars are being designed by members of the Amish community who have never left that community and are following a series of complex manuals which detail all the requirements of building motor vehicles from a moped up to an articulated lorry. Each manual refers to a specific part of the motor vehicle, the engine, steering, brakes etc. and there is one manual that deals with the precautions required in the event of the vehicle hitting another vehicle or part of the surrounding landscape.

Whilst I would agree that operational experience does not necessarily equate to good fire safety expertise, it helps. I remember the look on a Fire Safety Officer's face who was very proud of the work he had done on a secure mental unit including the secure air lock style entrance doors (inner doors cannot be unlocked if the outer doors are not locked) when the operational crew asked him how they were going to get water supplies for fire fighting into the building. (Sorry, these were the days when we actually went into buildings to fight fires).

I maintain that good Fire Safety work is a result of a mixture of theoretical knowledge and practical experience of fire and the best way to get that practical experience is actually fighting and investigating fires.

[William 29]

Does anyone remember the document that came out a few years before the RRO came in? The Regulatory Impact Assessment-fire safety order. I still have a copy but you don't seem to be able to source this on the web anymore! When you read it again now a few years on, the rationale of the RRO makes sense, from what was intended at least. That's why I feel we can debate this all day long but enforcement as we know it or have known it will change, perhaps to another enforcing body or a new one, I don't think anyone really cares that much, as long as it is "policed".

Below is Option 3 from the said document, that was implement, Option 1 was do nothing, carry on with FP Act and WP Regs, Option 2 was stop issuing fire certs and move to risk based approach legislation. Some of the reading will make you smile.

Option 3

Option 3 is a full rationalisation of all fire safety legislation.  There are significant benefits over option 2 in terms of simplification, clarity and compliance, while the potential costs of option 3 are not expected to be significantly (if at all) larger than those for option 2.

While very little arises in respect of new burdens, it is expected that the new Order will improve compliance as a result of the clarity achieved through rationalisation, the attendant publicity and new guidance.

Removal of requirement to obtain a fire certificate

The removal of the requirement for businesses in England and Wales to apply for fire certificates will result in a saving to business of approximately ?1.65 million per annum .

Better targeting of resources

The move away from a system based on certification of prescribed classes or uses of building will give fire authorities the freedom to develop their inspection programmes on the basis of risk.   Introduction of the new regime does not assume that there will be any alteration in the level of resources dedicated to fire safety, and it  assumed that the number of inspections carried out will not change. Adjustments to resourcing levels may however arise due to other factors for example Integrated Risk Management Planning by Fire Authorities.  Inspections will be focussed on premises that pose the highest risks in comparison to others in the area, and thus more effectively deployed.  It also maximises the benefits in terms of the efficient use of fire service resources since fire authorities will more often be enforcing fire safety law in their own right, rather than as third parties consulted by those administering other regimes.

Savings in cost of fire

We have estimated the overall economic consequential cost of fire in England and Wales for 2001 at just over ?786m. (see Annex A).  We have calculated the average economic consequential cost of fire to be ?25,900 , and have used this figure to calculate potential savings from the measures now proposed.  (The economic consequential costs only include property losses, fatalities, injuries and lost business.)

The measures proposed in option 3 will promote greater compliance and more focus on prevention in high-risk properties.  We cannot be precise about the reduction in fires, and cost savings, that might be delivered, but we can make a broad-brush assessment.  A reduction in the number of fires in England and Wales of 5%, 10% and 15% would achieve annual savings of ?39m, ?79m and ?118m respectively.  (See Annex B.)  To this we should add the unquantifiable saving in terms of the human costs of fire outlined above.

Costs of Compliance

The proposed move to a system based on risk assessment should not create new burdens, because all those who would be covered by it are already required to undertake risk assessments under existing legislation.
We estimate it might take 1 to 1.5 hours for a manager (or the person nominated to implement the regime), to become familiar with the guidance, depending on how familiar they are with the existing requirements.  Assuming an average labour cost for a manager of ?22.80 per hour , we would expect the cost of familiarisation to be within the range ?22.80 to ?34.20.

Total costs for an individual business would fall in a range of ?34.80 (assuming 1 hour is required for familiarisation) to ?46.20 (assuming 1.5 hours). Given the limitations of the available information, and the strong probability of double counting, we have used the broad estimate of 2m premises (England and Wales) for the purposes of our cost calculation. This suggests overall costs to business for obtaining the guidance and becoming familiar with it in a range of ?66m to ?88.8m.

Identify any other costs

The Fire Service has already moved towards a risk-assessment based enforcement regime independently of the reform following the introduction of the Workplace Regulations (1997): Most provisions of the new regime exist in law already and are enforced by relevant enforcing authorities who are already therefore,  familiar with the requirements.  Where new arrangements are in place it is not expected that there will be a need for re-training:  New  personnel who join will receive training in the new arrangements as part of the normal  training programme.

Summary of Costs/Benefits

We expect those who operate premises (i.e. employers, the self-employed with non-domestic premises, and the voluntary sector, as discussed above) to obtain the guidance, and familiarise themselves with it.  The costs of this are considered below. We have estimated a range of costs likely to be incurred in obtaining the new guidance and familiarisation with it.  This comes within the range ?66m to ?88.8m.
We know that many businesses are not complying with the existing requirements upon them.  We have estimated the total cost of complying, in terms of producing risk assessments and training staff, would be in the range of ?212m to ?301m for all businesses in England and Wales (see section 10 and Annex D).  Most employers (65%) would face an average cost of ?196 for these activities.  As this is not a new burden it has not been set against the quantification of the benefits of the arrangements proposed in the Order.

Essentially, therefore, we estimate the effect of the Order will be to achieve annual savings within a range of ?47m to ?137m, plus some wider but unquantifiable economic benefits, and benefits in respect of reduced suffering and trauma of victims of fire and their relatives and friends.  This is set against an estimate of one-off costs within the range ?66m to ?88.8m for businesses to educate themselves about the new arrangements.

So, while it is estimated that there is likely to be one off cost to business of between ?66m to ?88m, this figure is offset by the projected savings.  Consequently, in the year of introduction, the cost benefit range is from between a saving of ?49m and a cost of ?19m.  Thereafter savings in the range ?47m-?137m will apply. Thus over a ten year period (not allowing for inflation), ongoing savings to business at current prices of between ?382 million and ?1.304 billion would be expected to accrue.
The Government believes that the benefits explained in this assessment over the longer term, outweigh the initial costs and fully justify the proposals for reform.

We intend to track the operation of the new legislation principally through monitoring and evaluation of performance statistics and data collection from fire authorities after a term of three years.

[Clevelandfire 3]

I'll throw my two pennies worth in here. For once I agree with Toddy.

A fire safety officer / inspector is a role. You don't need to know about gas cooling, friction loss in hose, how to take a ladder lock, or do a firemans lift to be a fire safety officer!.

So long as your competent in that role what is the issue? Being a firefighter doesn't make you a competent fire safety officer. Does operational experience help? I'd argue not - I know some 30 year firefighters who haven't really experienced that many big fires in their careers even though they worked at busy inner city whole time stations. It was just the case they always seemed to be off duty when these incidents occurred.Luck of the draw!.

To counter the argument (purely about fire safety inspectors) Non operational officers are taught fire behaviour - you don't have to go to a fire scene to understand fire these days (if ever it was the case) There's a wealth of information out there these days on the subject , videos of incidents, of human behaviour, case studies, and other media, infact  I know some non operational officers who have experienced live fire conditions because their brigades have sent them into their live fire training facilities.OK they don't actually do any firefighting for obvious reasons - and they don't need to - they observe.

But the question remains do they really need to go to a live fire or into a fire house to be able to gain competence to do their job? of course not.

There is a huge elephant in the room. Its a Scottish elephant who has never ever ridden a fire engine and yet knows alot more than I ever will about fire safety. There are lots more elephants where he came from out there too.

Nowadays fire crews simply attend more RTCs than they do fires...

As SAMFriT also points out just because a CM?WM or duty SM providing has attended a level 1 or 2 fire investigation course as part of their roll maps doesn't make them a competent fire investigator (although many think it does). 

Infact Fire Investigation is another case-in-point - it is a discipline where non fire service personnel have been involved with for years.... and they have never ridden a big red fire engine.

Think we have to accept there are a few firefighters who swagger around thinking because they've seen a fire or two they know it all. The awkward truth is they don't. I should know I've worked with may like them. There are the good ones who accept that we all have a job to do in this world, and that a uniform and a badge doesn't make you high and mighty or right!

Anyway it doesn't really matter now anyway - the Police will be enforcing the RRO soon anyway. Evenin' All.

[Indiana]

Competency in role, as Clevelandfire 3 stated, is the key to who should enforce it. As has already been stated, this is a role in itself and if the fire brigades can keep the role seperate then there is no reason why they can't or shouldn't continue to enforce the legislation. But here lies the problem, alot of brigades are now trying to create a 'swiss army knife' multi functioning firefighter - putting out fires one day and providing fire safety advice and enforcement on another day and this is just not viable. There is too much information and skills to learn and then maintain both as an operational firefighter and as an inspecting officer.

An inspecting officer has to be trained to a high level in order to carry out their duties and responsibilities effectively both for the RP and enforcing authority. The 'swiss army knife' approach means that the skill level has dropped in recent times because the new inspecting officers don't have time to learn the job on a day to day basis because they have too many roles to do. This means that the skill level is gradually declining and will continue to do so unless things change. I'm not sure if this is the case with all fire brigades but it is becoming more and more of a problem. Managers seem to think that once you have completed the fire safety course then you are off and running when this is not the case. You have the basic knowledge which you can then gain experience and, over the years, develop your knowledge and skills still further to become more accomplished.

For strategic managers, business safety is far more important than fire safety because it helps the brigades in other areas e.g. reducing false alarms. Alot of managers fail to understand the importance of fire safety and, therefore, keep looking to see how it can feed in to their performance indicators which are all operationally driven. To me, business safety and fire safety are both important but one shouldn't be to the detriment to the other. Both rolls can and do overlap but there are also alot of areas where they are distinctly different.

With reference to the new CFOA 'safe enough' audit, due to the simplicity of the form it is even more vital for the inspecting officer to have the required knowledge and understanding in order to come to the correct decision i.e. is it really safe enough.

If this continues then the fire brigades are not the right organisation to enforce the legislation. Who should......I don't know, perhaps HSE or a regulatory body.

A swiss army knife on my key-ring looks good but I would rather have the correct tools in the boot of my car.

[wee brian]

Well said. But going back to where this all started, Colin is just winding you all up. Just don't bite!

[kurnal]

It goes further than that Brian. I think the industry and particularly fire services need to review where they are and where they are going in terms of enforcement. Fire services are very reliant on a rapidly diminishing pool of experienced staff who had the benefit of structured comprehensive training, and experience at an approriate level or rank and as these officers retire for the second time the existing structure and competences will be lost. Then standards of enforcement and technical reviews of building proposals will inevitably decline.

Indiana has it right, the role has been de-skilled since the Bain review. Prior to Bain most county brigades used station managers as inspecting officers, with a dual role of both operations and fire safety. They were responsible for territorial areas and in many cases the supervision and training of a group of retained stations, and fire investigations etc. Bain and cuts together have led to decimation of this valuable role and one of the first things Bain did was to pretend that watch managers without a designated training structure could be equivalent to the former inspecting officers. The public were fooled by the simple expedient of dressing the subs in charge of fire trucks in a white helmet so they did not notice the difference. But the substance, role, rank, knowledge, competence and experience was lost overnight.

The cities tended to have specialist teams dedicated to fire safety due to the workload with a designated management structure but again a with a heavy workload leading to experience and a training and competence structure relating to the role no longer found under the Swiss Army knife approach.

Colin might pretend to be teasing but the fire service management CFOA et al need to wake up and smell the coffee and consider what their enforcement and competence strategy will be when all the old guys have gone if they want to keep their current responsibility for enforcement.


These are very valuable skills and at serious risk of being lost forever. To  me it does not matter if the individuals carrying out the enforcement role wear a uniform or not, and clearly there are roles for specialists such as fire engineers. But I believe the role of enforcement should continue to sit with the fire services and they should equip themselves to carry out the role effectively or risk losing it.

[colin todd]

I wasnt teasing. What do we think of a supposedly trained and experienced officer who is dogmatic that you cant use chipboard as a core for a fire door, and his service who wont listen to Auntie Lin and the BWF in that respect.

[wee brian]

I think civilians and fire fighters are both capable of being stupid.

Argh now I've bitten!

[Mr. P]

Wee B, so long as it is only your cheek and not the hand that feeds you!