[
So you have identified who is the responsible person for your premises and now need to find a competent person to carry out the fire risk assessment. Colin Todd of the Institution of Fire Engineers guides us through some potentially hazardous waters.
The regulatory reform (fire safety) order (RRO) does not itself specifically require that the person who carries out the fire risk assessment must be ‘competent’. The government’s view during the drafting process appeared to be that to require the person carrying out the fire risk assessment to be ‘competent’ would necessitate, or at least imply, that it should be carried out by a specialist, such as an external consultant. It was argued that this would then be contrary to government policy of easing, rather than adding to, legislative burdens.
So the guides produced by the ODPM are based on an assumption that the ‘responsible person’ (RP) – with no formal training or experience – should be able to carry out a fire risk assessment in less complex premises. More complex ones, however, would probably need to be assessed by a person who has comprehensive training or experience in this field. It is not that a fire risk assessment can readily be carried out by an incompetent person, but that the level of competence will vary with the nature and complexity of the premises.
Other than in the case of the self-employed, the RP must appoint one or more competent persons to assist him or her in undertaking the measures required by the RRO. These people may, or may not, be the ones who carry out the fire risk assessments, but in either case they should have a basic understanding of the legislation and its requirements in respect of fire risk assessment. It should also be noted that the RRO requires that, where there is a competent person in the RP’s employment, that person must be appointed in preference to one (such as a consultant) not in his employment.
In-house assessor
In the case of small enterprises it is, arguably, often more appropriate for the fire risk assessment to be carried out by the RP or a person in his or her employment. Although such people will not usually have specialist knowledge, they know their own business: the premises; the activities; the managerial arrangements and so on. Moreover, by carrying out the fire risk assessment, they will better understand, and be better able to manage, the fire risks on their premises. While they may overlook some matters that a more skilled fire risk assessor would identify, if the fire risk assessment is carried out with reasonable commitment, it is unlikely that such matters will result in significant risk to occupants. The fact that the RP will often more readily buy into the fire risk assessment and pay attention to its findings, may more than compensate for minor shortcomings in his or her fire risk assessment skills.
In order to ensure that employees are up to the task, it may be sufficient for them to participate in a simple training course, possibly only for one day. At the other extreme, in many large organisations there are one or more fire safety specialists, and it may be these who act both as the competent person and as the fire risk assessor. The Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE) supports these principles: in its Register of Fire Risk Assessors and Auditors there is the facility to register those who only carry out fire risk assessments in their own organisation, as well as those who carry out fire risk assessments on a commercial basis (e.g. consultants).
In many larger enterprises, particularly those with, say, hundreds of premises, there will be one or two competent persons (usually dealing with health & safety and fire) to assist in compliance with the legislation, but they may have insufficient skills or resources to carry out fire risk assessments for all sites. Under these circumstances, the RP (or those having control of premises such as managing agents or property owners) may seek the services of a suitably qualified consultant. It is interesting to note that, under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, a person may be deemed to be competent to provide safety assistance if, among other things, he or she recognises his or her own limitations and seeks external advice where necessary.
Outside help
It is important that external people carrying out fire risk assessments are particularly skilled and competent. Both criminal and civil liability may arise for those employing them, if the resulting fire risk assessment is so incompetent that it fails to obviate serious risk to occupants from fire. While consultants themselves may also incur liability, the principal duty rests with the RP or person having control of the premises. It is incumbent on them to ensure that any advice they seek about compliance with their duties is rendered by a competent person.
In selecting a suitable specialist fire risk assessor, what competencies and skills should the employer (i.e. the RP or person having control of the premises) seek? In addressing this question, we should firstly note that fire risk assessment is not really a brand new discipline or science, nor something completely different to the traditional practice of fire safety. Indeed, it might be argued that there should always have been at least an element of fire risk assessment in the application of traditional prescriptive legislation and codes of practice. Equally, it is arguable that it was insufficient consideration of fire risks, resulting in measures that were not appropriately risk proportionate, that led to the need for more formal fire risk assessments. In the view of the IFE, however, fire risk assessment normally involves merely a minor cultural shift from the traditional approach to fire safety. It follows that, in order to carry out competently a fire risk assessment, it is necessary (but not always sufficient) for the fire risk assessor to have a good underpinning knowledge of the principles of fire safety. This includes a fundamental knowledge of the causes and means of preventing fire, a knowledge of the design of fire protection measures, an understanding of the behaviour of fire in buildings, and an understanding of the behaviour of people in fire.
There is no single path to achieving this knowledge – it will arise from an appropriate mix of education, training and experience. Thus, competence does not necessarily depend on the possession of specific qualifications, although these might contribute to the demonstration of competence.
Education, training and experience in the principles of fire safety need not each be extensive; the important point is whether the combination of each results in adequate knowledge. A high level of any one of these three parameters might compensate for a lower level in another. A schematic diagram appears in PAS 79 and this can be used as a simple guideline for assessment of applicants to the IFE Register of Fire Risk Assessors and Auditors.
Cultural shift
What of the ‘minor cultural shift’ that it is expected of the fire risk assessor? In this connection, we need to consider what differentiates the actual assessment of fire risk and consequent development of an action plan, from the application of traditional legislation and prescriptive codes of practice. Possible differences include:
– A greater consideration of ‘soft’ issues, relating to management of fire safety, which should not only be investigated within a fire risk assessment, but taken into account in the assessment of fire risk and the measures appropriate to address the risk.
– The significance of the actual likelihood of fire and measures taken to prevent fire. Traditional legislation made no requirements in respect of preventing the occurrence of fire, but merely endeavoured to ensure that people were safe when fire occurred. This approach will not be sufficient under the RRO.
– Recognition that codes of practice on any aspect of fire protection are merely, that – codes of good practice – which might not need to be followed slavishly. This does not, however, imply that fire risk assessment should be used as a tool to ‘risk assess away’ measures that are universally accepted good practice within the profession.
– Recognition that it is the overall fire safety package that is important. This means consideration of the overall picture, rather than separate consideration of each individual fire protection measure in isolation.
Verification
While the experience and competence of the fire risk assessor can probably be gleaned from a simple CV, this cultural shift may be more difficult to verify. Discussion with the fire risk assessor of the approach that will be adopted to the type of premises in question may be of assistance. Also, references from other clients (particularly those in an associated field of business) can be of comfort to the employer. A particularly powerful tool in the selection process is to examine the format in which the documented significant findings of the fire risk assessment will be produced. Most fire risk assessors use some form of pro-forma report or template. At the very least, examination of this will determine whether the appropriate matters will be investigated and reported on. The experience of the IFE in operating the Register of Fire Risk Assessors and Auditors is that examination of the format, and perusal of sample assessments (which the employer could also ask to examine, with all relevant names of clients, etc removed), is an extremely powerful tool in determining whether an applicant should be registered.
It is, perhaps, a reflection of both the rigour of the IFE process and the value of this approach, that around 40% of applicants are rejected at this stage. This is not to suggest that this proportion of applicants is not competent in the principles of fire safety, but that the documented fire risk assessments were not suitable and sufficient to demonstrate the requisite cultural shift. It is as a result of the relatively high rejection rate that the IFE supported the production of PAS 79. This specification is not prescriptive and, although an example of a suitable pro-forma for a fire risk assessment under the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation was incorporated, this was only offered as an example of a suitable format. On the other hand, PAS 79 offered benchmarks for suitable and sufficient fire risk assessments, and the guidance is in the process of amendment to address the RRO, rather than the Workplace Fire Precautions Legislation. Accordingly, the employer of a fire risk assessor might wish to consider the scope of the proposed document in the light of guidance contained in the new guides under the RRO and/or the guidance in PAS 79.
Although government policy is that there is no right or wrong way of carrying out, or documenting, a fire risk assessment, a suitable and sufficient one is likely to investigate and record information about:
– The building (for example, its height, construction and so on).
– The occupants, including the number, familiarity with the building, and factors that put them at special risk. It is a specific requirement that occupants at special risk be recorded.
– Fire loss experience. Information on previous fires might help in identifying fire hazards.
– The fire hazards, and measures for their control (ignition sources and measures to mitigate the likelihood of fire, for example).
– Fire protection measures (means of escape, fire warning systems, emergency lighting, signs, fire extinguishing appliances, smoke control systems and so on).
– Management of fire safety (for example, policies, procedures, staff training, fire drills, testing and maintenance, and record keeping).
– The actual assessment of fire risk.
– A suitable action plan.
3rd party certification
Are there any shortcuts that the busy employer might adopt in selecting a suitable fire risk assessor? It is relevant to note that the government appears to be committed to the support of third party certification schemes for fire protection products and services. The use of certificated firms is generally held to constitute material evidence of due diligence to ensure the adequacy of fire protection measures.
Perhaps a similar approach is relevant in the case of the selection of a competent fire risk assessor. Ideally, what is needed is suitable third party certification of the competence of individuals carrying out fire risk assessments, and perhaps a certification scheme for the organisation that carries out the fire risk assessment (in terms of quality assurance procedures and professional indemnity insurance, for example). It will be interesting to observe whether the government, professional bodies and certification bodies follow the lead in this respect given by the IFE in creating its Register of Fire Risk Assessors and Auditors.
Colin Todd is chairman of the IFE’s fire risk assessors professional review panel and managing director of consultants CS Todd & Associates Ltd. For further information on the IFE Register of Fire Risk assessors and auditors see www.ife.org.uk/frr