According to our latest poll, the majority (just) 33 percent of respondents confirmed the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 needs to be replaced by the old fire certificates, much beloved by businesses and public sector organisations in years gone by. It’s a bit like Michael Gove kindly telling us O-Levels, Latin, grammar schools, and tuck shops represented the halcyon days of education, but really, do we want to go back? The government certainly won’t — what with fire safety concerns barely registering a pulse in the Westminster body as we’ve recently seen.
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.
| Is the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 fit for purpose? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 102 survey takers responded to this question | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interestingly, 31 percent stated the legislation was suitable, but the individuals needed clearer advice, which is possibly the most telling response to the question. Although now becoming a foggy and distant memory, the introduction of the Fire Safety Order 2005 was a stop-start and confused operation led by a leafleting campaign sent to over 3 million business names supplied by Experian, and that pretty much was it! Bad luck if you missed out, blame the data.
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 for the annual inspection and that the responsibility now fell squarely on their shoulders. They needed to know that a fire risk assessment was their concern and the duty was down to them to inspect and ensure their premises were compliant. That’s quite a challenge for someone running a business whose attention and knowledge are principally commercial, and not primarily geared towards the complicated science of life safety within a fire protection context.
Whilst the government undertook a comprehensive and worthwhile breakdown of the sectors affected in the guidance documents that detailed the nuances for fire risk assessments, the feeling remained that it was the best kept legal secret in Westminster. A pity really as a concerted campaign to reach all of the eleven sectors outlined would have unquestionably raised the awareness levels and created tangible momentum. It’s not as if vertical media is non-existent in the UK — the home of trade publications, websites, and exhibitions.
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 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 is 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.
Communication and engagement in this instance is everything. But then I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Related posts:
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
I think the government has no real plan for improving fire safety let alone establishing an effective and efficient authorised body. This excercise is purely try your luck procedures
Great article, Gerry. Clearly, despite the overwhelming feeling toward the RRO being negative, we know the Government is unlikely to revisit the legislation. So your proposal of a major media campaign to increase awareness sounds like a good idea. But again, who would fund it, really? These ‘times of austerity’ are exhausting.
As there is dissatisfaction in the Regulatory reform of 2005, The Government should take initiative for the amendment of the fire safety method. Proper communication to individual is the one and only way to bring consciousness among people regarding fire safety.
In the republic of Ireland certificates were done away with a long time ago and were only limited in application .Self assessment did not work and many builidngs are now seen to be seriously deficient never mind the managment aspects. There needs to be checks at the builidng or modification stage and ongoing management checks by authorities on a selective basis to create the motivation for people to do things right. This more than education will drive compliance. I agree with the need for education and communication but in this case the sword may be mightier than the pen. … Read more »
The benefit of fire risk assessment was supposed to be that responsible people could design bespoke fire safety that fitted their needs, rather than be forced to apply a blanket (fire certificate) standard that was set so high that it rendered most buildings safe but was excessive in some cases. But this advantage appears to be outweighed by the disadvantage of the process. A typical responsible person has so little experience of fire that they can’t carry out a genuine fire risk assessment, even if they only have a small premises, because they have no idea what the risk of… Read more »
So if it was a choice, one or the other, you’d go with more random inspections? Would harsher penalties help as well do you think?
Agree that a particularly high-risk environment ie. a factory, is likely to be aware of the risks of fire anyway. They’ll have various health and safety risk assessments as well, so will be familiar with the process.
But a guide for those who don’t have such an understanding sounds like a great idea.
Also David, thanks for your analysis. You’re right 80% is a massive amount of negative feeling towards the RA process.
Rob,Every system needs internal and external audit/inspection.
I would go with random/targeted inspections with relevant penalties and lots of communication about those who breach the rules
Employers and People protecting us from Risk, need to be fully aware and motivated to the original idea of Fire Risk Assessment, back in 1996. They have the day to day awareness, running the building and process, but many did not bother! 2005, RRA “The Responsible Person” & Corporate Manslaughter, we have their attention, but still, many do not bother, cut corners and clearly intend to risk lives for more profit and a quiet life. The Government also wishes to save money, cut overheads, reduce staff and liability; just put the Responsibility onto the shoulders of Business People, Employers, Anyone;… Read more »
Many thanks David, I appreciate your comments. Ambiguity is a big factor in the understanding and implementation of the legislation with the term ‘responsible person’ being open to many interpretations. Added to that, there seems to be regional disparities as well which only contributes to the national ‘head-scratching’. A national fire safety guide would be an ideal solution particularly if it was in general terms and easy to apply from the end user’s perspective. Also as you rightly suggest, a smarter approach to premises based on risk would be a good way to move forward and fall in line with… Read more »
I think that’s an element of the missing part. We report on some of the prosecutions, but we’re preaching largely to the converted. It’s getting that message through to those who are blissfully unaware.
As you say, pretty low sample size for this poll (but fully declared!) but it is a nice barometer of feeling from people in the industry, I feel.
102 is a good number. Enough to start the debate and you’ll know the percentages are sound!
It’ll do for me…
As far as I am aware 33% of anything has never been a majority…….
33% would be a great turnout for a national election in the UK 🙂
Couldnt disagree with that view Rob, I was just challenging the misuse of mathematics in order to try to make a point. Im not making an argument for or against any particular motion.
Hi Gerry. I read your article today and as an ex- authority fire safety officer and now a self employed Risk Assessor the relevance of the topic has compelled me to write a reply. Only this afternoon, I had this exact conversation with some old colleagues of mine at the fire station and we all came to the same conclusion: SELF REGULATION IS NOT THE BEST WAY FOR EVERY BUSINESS. What we need to do???? A bit more of a prescriptive approach. The risk assessment is a good starting point but it should not just be… Read more »
I think this is a good suggestion. But given the government’s unwillingness to change regulations at the moment, I’d say cut out the last couple of points and just put the responsibility onto insurers. As you said, compare it to a car MOT. The insurer asks you to declare that you have a valid MOT, and so should they ask you if you have a valid fire risk assessment. But not just a tick in a long terms and conditions, a bold question that is highlighted. People should be made clear that their insurance will be invalid without it. It’d… Read more »
I don’t know, I think it’s just a lack of interest in legislation in general
I think it is not a popular issue so there is limited interest at moment as compared to issues like the benefits and job creations