[
Businesses and enforcers are broadly satisfied with the impact and effectiveness the Fire Safety Order, according to a much anticipated review from the Communities and Local Government department.
The initial evaluation of the effectiveness in England of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order, published yesterday, sought the opinion of representatives from fire and rescue authorities, the fire safety industry, and responsible persons. It says that overall, fire and rescue services have welcomed the legislation, and that businesses – when aware of its provisions – understand and support the principle of a risk assessed approach. In addition, most of those in businesses able to give an opinion said it was an improvement on previous legislation.
Enforcers, mainly in the shape of individual fire and rescue authorities, reported a good understanding of risk and the implementation of audit strategies focussed on the highest risk premises. They also reported a clear link between their Integrated Risk Management Plans and their audit and enforcement activity under the FSO, and also a high degree of co-operation with eachother and with other enforcement agencies. Some fire and rescue authorities and local authorities, however, would welcome more guidance on their enforcement responsibilities.
Fire and rescue authorities also said that the risk assessment guides produced by the government were comprehensive and useful, and they used or referred to this material when handling enquiries from responsible persons. But some responsible persons and fire industry representatives raised concerns about the guides being used by some fire and rescue authorities to set minimum standards.
There were concerns from both fire and rescue services and the fire safety industry that only around 60% of businesses are aware of the FSO, and that awareness is lowest among businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Large businesses, however, do not escape either -those across multiple sites are affected by confusion and potential disagreement over who is the responsible person.
Among responsible persons, while some felt that the introduction of the FSO had made little difference to their management of fire safety, others, especially from smaller businesses, said they would prefer very prescriptive guidance telling them exactly what was required to comply. Most businesses that had been audited by fire and rescue services – mainly providers of sleeping accommodation or retail premises – reported friendly and helpful support from them.
The variable quality of risk assessments by non-specialists was raised as a concern by representatives of all three groups involved in the survey. This led to some demands for an accreditation system for individuals and organisations involved in fire risk assessments.
“The general picture from this early snapshot from both enforcers and responsible persons is that the FSO is bedding in well and there are many positives to take from this,” the report states. “All parties tend to think that the risk assessment approach is the correct one and are embracing it to a greater or lesser degree.”
But the report concedes there are some areas which could benefit from further action. These include:
– raising awareness of the requirements of the FSO
– consideration of more tailored advice to ‘responsible persons’
– clarification of who a ‘responsible person’ is
– clarification of who may have an appropriate level of fire safety expertise to assist with delivering compliance with the FSO
– ensuring fire and rescue authorities continue to take a supportive and educational approach to compliance
But the report adds that these issues can only be properly considered after a longer term evaluation to establish the effectiveness and impact of the FSO.