Proposals for New Fire Safety Law Presented to Parliament

Risk Asssessments should be carried out by a competent person, but who is a competent person, and why isn't it defined more comprehensively in the new Fire Precautions in the Workplace draft legislation??

Fire Risk Assessment is not a tick box philosophy. Neither should self regulation be seen as a means of being economical with safety measures.

As Micheal Ney indicates, one persons solution is anothers inadequacy.

Fire Risk Assessment is a holistic process and should only be carried out by those with appropriate technical skills and practical experience.

The ability to identify, quantify, qualify and provide efficient and effective solutions to the potential hazards presented by property layout, people interaction and process risks would lie outwith the normal experience of most people.

Having Fire Safety related components present in the workplace does not necessarily equate to a safe environment. It is their appropriate interaction with identified hazards to eliminate or reduce risks that is crucial.

Assessment of such interactions is where the skill of the Fire Risk assessor is vital. A background in Fire Safety, Fire Engineering, Fire Investigation and Firefighting would be the ideal requirements for this process.

Since Risk Assessment findings affect all who contact the workplace whether as employee, visitor or Firefighter, they must be comprehensive, accurate, reliable, effective and have their corrective actions implemented and monitored.

Risk assessment is not a 'one off', but is a dynamic process which must be reviewed along with the changing workplace environment.

In the light of recent tragedies, the challenge may not be 'What if?' but 'When?'

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Something that tidies up the plethora of legislation and control such as BS 5588 Pts 1 to 20, the Building Regs, the FPA 1971, The Workplace Regs and so on has to be a good thing. On the other hand, self-certification, which is what it becomes, is only so good as the certifier's skill and knowledge base. Those whose skills are below par won't be discovered until, perhaps, it is too late. Suing someone afterwards or clapping them in jail achieves nothing; the aim is to prevent the fire in the first place, control and deal with it quickly and effectively should it occur and get everyone out and account for them swiftly and reliably so that people can be found and rescued if need be and firefighters are not risked unnecessarily.

For example, people are still relying on hosereels yet the Brigades hate them as they will not use them, they encourage people to stay and fight the fire far longer than they would once a fire extinguisher runs out, without protective clothing or BA and then they end up having to be rescued by firefighters putting their lives on the line. The quick assessment says "tick the box if there is a hosereel or extinguisher" without seeing the greater risks behind the provision.

The changes do need a greater policing role for the Fire Prevention branch to make sure employers' assessments are done and are of some real use.