Page 154 - Archived Back Issues

FIREFIGHTERS NEWS
From Peter Hopkins, Freeman and Brigade link for the PR and Marketing working group of the Company.
Nearly everyday across the UK I deal with issues around either fire safety or workplace safety that involves a link to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Similarly, there are just as many questions about its effectiveness and how it is enforced. The article below caught my eye and, with the permission of Gerry Dunphy the author, we reproduce an edited version here in Salamander, with the aim of (hopefully) provoking some discussion.
“The votes are in and it’s confirmed - current fire safety legislation is flawed”
According to our latest poll, only 13% of respondents found the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 to be effective, with some 33% wishing the return of the old fire certificates, much beloved by businesses and public sector organisations in years gone by. But really, do we want to go back? The government certainly won’t - fire safety concerns barely registering a pulse in the Westminster body. Added to that, is the sheer cost of the operation at a time when fire service efficiencies are under review. Sending out legions of staff with safety certificates hardly fits the current model, so it’s not very likely such a labour-intensive operation will be forthcoming, despite the expertise and undeniable suitability the FRS holds.
So, is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 fit for purpose?
Clearer Advice Needed
Interestingly, 31% stated the legislation was suitable, but the individuals needed clearer advice as to what to do. Now call me naive, but a major piece of legislation such as this required an orchestrated and targeted information campaign aimed at businesses and organisations across England and Wales. Business owners and organisation managers needed vital information on the implications of the changes in process plus, more important, on the impact the legislation would have on them directly.
They needed to know their friendly neighbourhood fire service representative would no longer visit; they needed to know that a fire risk assessment was their concern and the duty - that's quite a challenge for someone running a business whose attention and knowledge are principally commercial. A concerted campaign was needed to reach all sectors of industry affected and would have unquestionably raised
the awareness levels and created tangible momentum.
There have been numerous debates and discussions about the ambiguity of the legislation, particularly in respect to the term "responsible person." This is another major cause for concern within the business community. It’s not as if these people set out to compromise life safety, but it was often the case they simply didn’t know their full expectations under the legislation. They did not know this because the communication of the changes was so poorly addressed. Obviously ignorance before the law doesn’t stand up in court but in this case, where the goalposts have so clearly moved under the cover of darkness, there is a degree of understanding.
Speaking very much as a civilian with a watching brief on the fire sector, I find it perplexing that many business owners I speak to are completely unaware of the changes to this legislation, with many still wondering when their fire inspections were going to take place. Seven years of waiting may even prompt them into looking into this, but I fear "out of sight out of mind" will prevail. Therefore there will be an increasing number of cases and prosecutions in the years to come.
The solution to me seems simple and relatively straightforward. Renew the campaigns to educate and inform on a national level, to make sure business owners and the responsible people in general are at least aware they’ll have a problem should the worst happen. The fundamental essence of the legislation is to improve life safety and create an environment where a risk-based approach to fire protection is endemic within the public and private sectors.
As it stands, the poll verifies there is dissatisfaction with the current legislation in addition to a feeling of a lack of clarity. Notices are also vague. There is a lack of consistency across the country as each fire authority interprets the legislation in accordance to its own levels of expectation.
Therefore I offer a challenge to DCLG and the Government: review how you communicate this legislation, and provide all affected parties with a fair chance to assess their fire risks and overall obligations. You’ll be greatly enhancing the national life safety message and be helping to deliver the originally intended outcome of the changes in the legal framework. We’ve watched how confusion and misinformation have made this vital piece of law an object of anxiety and despair - so it’s time to put it right.
Gerry Dunphy, Sales Director, Firex International
Do you have a comment? Then email me direct at: ph@richardlawrenceassociates.co.uk and we can (if they are printable!!) include them in the next Salamander.
6