Fire
reforms – a lukewarm response so farFire
reforms – a lukewarm response so far
Last year saw the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order making employers ultimately responsible for their site fire prevention and safety of staff. Six months on we look at the state of play
The reform (commonly known as the RRO) came about as a result of the fire brigade being overwhelmed with the amount of work needed to keep on top of the certification and fire risk assessments for businesses in the UK.
Problems arose when buildings changed hands or functionality and the fire brigade were not informed. Then when the next fire check occurred the officers were met with a host of new dangers and as a result were constantly trying to catch up.
The fire legislation itself was scattered across a number of documents such as the Fire Precautions Act, the Health & Safety at Work Act and many industry focused regulations, and so it was necessary that one rule needed to be developed to cover all facets of fire safety. Furthermore it was decided the best course of action was to make one person in each company responsible for compliance with the new legislation and have the task of keeping the details up to date.
This is the regulation that came into force in October last year. So, six months on, have there been any discernible changes in business practice since the inception of the RRO?
“In my opinion no,” says Don Scott of Siemens Building Technologies. “Some of the bigger companies have changed their processes but in regard to the average small to mid-size company, I don’t think they even know about the RRO.
“When we approach companies about their risk assessment today they seem to think it is only part of the new legislation, but there should have been an assessment in place already!”
“It wasn’t publicised enough to the right people. For example last year when I was in Scotland there was an announcement on the radio outlining the fire legislation changes and warning companies to take the correct steps before the deadline passed. In order to help, a list of contact phone numbers was given out. I remember thinking at the time; we had nothing like that in the rest of the UK. In our seminars when I ask delegates how many know about the RRO the positive response is minimal.”
There was, at the time of the development of the RRO, a feeling among fire consultants that the lack of publicity surrounding the order might lead it the same way as the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997 - where nobody knew about the need to carry out a fire risk assessment.
“When we approach companies about their risk assessment today they seem to think it is only part of the new legislation, but there should have been an assessment in place already!” says Don. “The problem really was also in part down to the continuing delays surrounding the introduction of the RRO. Originally we were told that the delays were due to the repealing of older fire legislation taking longer than expected. But for me it was due to the writing of the eleven sector specific guidance notes, which as far as I’m concerned aren’t even completed entirely today.
The whole weight of the RRO is upon the ‘responsible’ person at a company, in other words the buck stops with the employer. This person can authorise others to work on their behalf but he/she cannot delegate the responsibility.
The problem with this is that the responsible person is not likely to have an in-depth knowledge of electrics, fire sprinkler systems and all of the other technologies involved in fire protection/safety. So how will this person know if the installer of the equipment is competent enough to install it or if the maintenance contractor is competent in his work?
“There is a lot of reliance upon the perceived competency of others with the RRO,” says Don. “A key factor in the selection of contractors/installers is third party accreditation (NSI, LPS, etc) but the awareness of this solution is also lacking and people need to be told of how to recognise genuine competency, much in the same way as they would in looking for certification before contracting a plumber or builder.
“In general I would say that those within the fire industry are well informed about the RRO and assume that everyone else is too. As a direct result of this knowledge gap there are manufacturers offering to carry out risk assessments for companies only to recommend that the client needs to buy more of their products. If the awareness of the RRO and all that it entails was across the board then sharp practices like this would not happen.
“What’s more if there is a problem with your site and the person you got in to do your risk assessment was not ‘competent’ and was actually only there in a selling capacity, you are in trouble.”
If you take a look at the guidance notes compiled by the Government then it is quite clear, and pretty much common sense, what the responsible person has to do to meet the criteria of the RRO, unfortunately in Don Scott’s mind the word has yet to reach all the right ears and someone may soon get more than they bargained for when a fire occurs at their site.
“Six months later on from the introduction of the RRO there is still a lot of work to do,” concludes Don. “Those companies with dedicated fire or facilities professionals are well aware of the reforms and are safe and secure. The smaller to mid-size companies are a worry.”
“Quite often for people to realise about a new piece of legislation there needs to be a well publicised disaster. I think it will take all of the fuss that comes after a major fire for companies and the fire industry to realise the lack of awareness there is. Now that the fire brigades have all of the authority, once they investigate a risk assessment that is incomplete or fails to recognise a potential threat, then there will be costly court proceedings to follow – and that will make everyone sit up and take notice.”