33% Want Return of Fire Certificates

The votes are in and it’s confirmed — current fire safety legislation is flawed.

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

Let’s see the return of fire certificates 33.33% [ 34 ] Yes, but clearer advice is needed 31.37% [ 32 ] No, enforcement notices are vague, and advice is inconsistent 17.65% [ 18 ] Yes, it’s clear and effective 13.73% [ 14 ] No, the fire services are not the right people to enforce it 2.94% [ 3 ] Other (please tell us in the comments) 0.98% [ 1 ]

Clearer advice needed

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.

Will the responsible person please step forward?

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:

• Fire Safety Laws in England & Wales
• Are Fire Safety Laws Fit for Purpose?
• Who Are the Worst Fire Safety Culprits?