Fire refuges: the controversies and the requirements

Here is the advice given by Su Peace (who works with the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Building Research Establishment in formulating new legislation on means of escape) in her contribution to Fire and Disability 2008: Special Report (http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/10466):

“Some disabled people will require assisted escape. In these cases it will be necessary to have a pre-arranged meeting place. If the disabled person is likely to move around the building a communication process will be necessary between the escape volunteer and the disabled person. They can then arrange to meet at a particular refuge point during the escape.“

Therefore, it would seem that as long as the wheelchair user and designated helper arrange to meet at a certain refuge and this is practiced beforehand, there should be no problem if an emergency occurs and they find themselves on different floors. A stairwell should be a point of refuge as it would also be a fire exit, meaning it should be safe from fire until the building is evacuated.

Thank you for your comments. The incident I have outlined is very unlikley but as you mention I am trying to make the PEEP resilient. However, you suggest "adjustments have to be put in place to cope with the posibility". The only way to guarantee 100% this situation will not happen would be to say to 'less-abled persons' you cannot go to the 2nd floor (where the canteen is situated) which surely would be discrimitary. This is my dilema. If a 'less-abled person' was caught in a situation where there was no trained helper to assist in an emergency they would be able to take refuge in a safe area. Would the firebrigade take responsibility for evacuating this person?

The issue of evacuation planning for less-abled persons, which has to include visitors as well as staff where you can reasonably foresee that person occupying the premises, has to have resiliece. The test will always be foreseeablity, can you foresee a problem in ensuring safe egress for an indivuidual or class of persons, if so, then you must make suitable and sufficient arrangements. The DDA says that you must make reasonable adjustments, where as the Fire Safety Order is explicit in that the responsible person must provide adequate means of escape for relevant persons.
Staff have a duty to co-operate (Article 23)with their employer, this will include less-abled persons.The PEEP must be structured, effective and have resilience.
As for staff returning to higher floors in order to effect the evacuation of less-abled persons, I do not see this as resilient, it would not be advised practice. If there is an expectation for less-abled staff to be on difference levels then adjustments have to be put in place to cope with the posibility.

I aa trying to put together a PEEP for a member of staff who uses a wheelchair. We have a number of designated helpers who will assist this memeber of staff to evacuate the building if there is an emergency. However, can anybody advise what course of action a 'designated helper' should take if they find they are on a lower floor in the building than the person they are supposed to be helping when an emergency occurs. Should they return to the higher floor to assist the memeber of staff? My understanding is that nobody should return to a higher floor if an emergency occurs. If this is the case what should happens to the wheel chairs user? This is an unlikley event as the wheelchair user spenders the majority of their time on the ground floor but I want to make sure everybody knows what is happening in all circumstances. Any advise would be very helpful?

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Can anybody offer advise on putting a PEEP together? - I am looking for specifc advise on what should happen when a designated helper for a wheel chair bound member of staff happens to be on a lower floor than person they are supposed to be helping when an emergency occurs? Should the helper return to the higher floor to assist the employee. My understanding is that nobody should return to a higher floor in the event of an emergency.

The situation Andrew has described is similar to a fictitious one discussed at length at a recent Fire Safety workshop I attended. 'What if' a wheelchair user refused to consider using an evacuation chair? What if he/she refused to agree a PEEP that relied on it's use, or resisted a move to a lower floor to make evacuation easier?
The requirements of fire safety must always take precedence over those of DDA. The law may be uncomfortable to confront but it is still the law and it is our responsibility as employers to ensure that everyone is taken to a place of safety. The lack of co-operation on anyone's part in the execution of an efficient evacuation is something that needs addressing urgently. In this case a lack of co-operation may cause fire service personnel to take unnecessary risks. It certainly leaves the employer with an ineffective evacuation strategy. The verdict reached in our workshop concluded that the unco-operative employee was more than likely in breach of Section 7 HASAWA and potentially subject to conduct and discipline procedures. Speaking for myself, as a differently-abled person I have a firm grasp on reality and a very robust PEEP.

Having been a member of the Fire Service for 32 years I have some sympathy for the position that busness now finds itself in. Under the 1971 Fire Precautions Act the Fire Service were largely responsible for setting the standards of fire safety within many types of building through the issuing of Fire Certificates, and advising other smaller premises on measures that focused on safety.
As a member of the Government committee that formulated the new Order it was always apparent that there were two polarised positions. One being that business wanted the ability to manage its business and activities in relation to fire and the other that the Fire Service was in the best position to take on the role of setting standards, as they were independent and soley concerned with public safety.
It will not be of surpise to learn that large business organisations and the CBI gravitated towards self management and others, such as the Small Business Association, felt that reliance on the Fire Service would provide them with the support that they needed. However the dominant factor in the debate was the impact of EU legislation, the effect of which gave little scope for empowering the Fire Service to set and monitor standards.
As I have said above I have sympathy with businesses that do not have the capacities within their Organistation to enable them to undertake what is a very specialist and safety critical field; as a soon to be former Senior Fire Safety Officer I believe that the Service has given up some of our previously held key values in striving towards 'modernisation'and will not be in a position to offer a high standard of advice and help in the future.
In answering the question of whether the legislation will change, I personally can not foresee the posibility of the new legislation being amended in its overall effect; the employer, for the most part, will be responsible for the evacuation of all persons on their premises and will run the risk of committing a criminal offence if they fail to do so.

It is very difficult to maintain a reasonable number of fire marshals, yet alone obtain sufficient numbers to assist with, for example, evacuation using evac chair, then you have the increased handling risks. Also, we have a wheelchair user here, who is also responsobsible for organisational equality, who refuses to be evaucuated by anyone other than the fire service. Just because the Reform act currently plcaes the responsibility on employers, does not mean that this is right; the fire service are the 'competant' persons at handling evacuations, I hope that that this part of the act is reviewed and amended becuase its thoroughly unworkable and therefore only increases the risk of harm being realised.

As with the previous fire safety framework the new Fire Safety Order places a duty on those responsible for premises to ensure that ALL persons can make safe egress in the event of a fire. The evacuation strategy for less abled persons can not rely upon the Fire Service.
The use of a refuge is a temporary measure and those persons who have the responsibility have a legal duty and moral responsibility to plan for the evacuation of less abled persons.