The Regulatory Reform (FS) Order 2005

[stevew]

A question on interpretation.

Reference Section 18
Safety Assistance

My interpretation is that the responsible person MAY nominate a fire safety advisor not in his employment as his 'competent person'.
I accept the point that  it should preferably be an employee.

Correct or not?

[wee brian]

Dont confuse competent person with responsible person.

You can't contract out your responsibility. But getting the right level of competency to assess a premises may need external help.

[stevew]

I am not referring to the responsible person.

I refer to where the regulation states that the responsible person MUST obtain the services of a competent person(s),  RRO Section 18 (Safety assistance),

The section goes on to say that if there is someone competent in their employment they MUST be nominated.
My interpretation is that the role can be taken by someone NOT in their employement.  For example a fire safety advisor.

[Shaun Doyle]

The safe assistance follows through from the Management Regs and is in essence the same understanding. If the person is in the employment of RP, it makes practical sense, providing that person is competent.

If the size or complex nature or the premises is such and person providing safety assistance is limited in terms of experience, knowledge, training etc then they would not be competent. In which case, it would be reasonable that assistance is brought in from outside the employment.  

Please don't loose sight of the fact that the new Fire Safety Order is not new law, but law that is reformed from around 100 + existing bits of fire legislation. It has gone through the process of reform to primarily be less of a burden on business and commerce etc. Hence, the understanding of safety assistance is from the Management Regs.

Hope this helps.

Shaun

[colin todd]

As always Shaun, bang on!!! When will people understand what you so eloquently explained?

[Ken Taylor]

Employers have been doing this with regard to general health and safety at least since 1992 (or, at least, should have been!).

[colin todd]

Not wishing to be pedantic, Kenneth, but actually from 1 January 1993.

[Ken Taylor]

You're correct as well as pedantic, Colin. It all seems like a vague memory to me but some of us had the thing in operation when the Act came out ready for the start date.

[Ken Taylor]

What's all this grades of membership about and will it encourage more casual postings in order to gain promotion to Colin's level?

[colin todd]

Dunno, it just arrived one day. One day, I was just humble old Colin Todd, in his shiny suit. Next day, it was like getting an MBE; I was made a whatsisname member of Firenet. Somehow it seemed to make my whole life worthwhile.

[zimmy]

While we're on the subject, Alterations notices are causing me a bit of a headache. Has anyone formed an opinion on when and what types of premises they are to be used.  It would seem convenient to bang out a notice on just about any premises we consider to be high risk, but this could prove burdonsome to administer and could end up with the situation of the old 8(4)(5) notices where employers simply didnt bother. Any Thoughts?

[wee brian]

They are an oppurtunity to tie you and everybody else up in red tape, they should be used sparingly.

[val]

WB is dead right,

ODPM are currently writing the first RRO Circular (or whatever it will be called) and this will give some direction. However, in my opinion, FRS should only issue these when the premises is 'potentially' very high risk, e.g shopping complexes, (potentially as in lots of people and complex systems) or those premises which are high risk and poorly managed, e.g nightclubs in basements run by not very nice or incompetent people.

If they are used too frequently they will drive the inspection regimes of FRS whilst other premises go un-audited.

[zimmy]

Thanks for your comments. I'll look out for the circular - one of many to come no doubt