[
In his article on the IFE’s register of fire risk assessors in May, Colin Todd provoked some responses which, he feels, show that there is considerable confusion on the subject. So we have invited him to clarify the process and the rationale behind it.
The Institution of Fire Engineers’ register of fire risk assessors and auditors is now well established, and the IFE’s professional review panel has processed around 120 applications for registration.
One question that has been raised in the correspondence to this magazine relates to the qualifications and experience of members of the professional review panel. This is, in fact, a matter of public record: such is the importance attached to the qualifications, experience and the appropriate balance of members, that they are all approved by the Institution’s board. In addition, all members must have been trained, or will receive training, in internal auditing processes, in compliance with BS EN ISO 9001. Current members of the panel are:
– Colin Todd MSc, C Eng FI FireE, IFE board member holding the technical portfolio.
– Clive Black MI FireE, former deputy senior fire prevention officer of the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade and subsequently fire safety specialist within Belfast City building control department, with a responsibility for licensing. Previously chairman, and now an affiliate, of the Northern Ireland fire safety panel and an independent consultant.
– Brian Gough MSc, FI FireE, area commander, Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. Brian holds a masters degree in fire safety engineering, and is currently completing a PhD on accidents and injuries to firefighters.
– Geoff Winkworth BSc, FI FireE, formerly deputy commandant and director of the fire safety engineering division of the Fire Service College and now a consultant. Geoff has a BSc degree in fire safety technology.
– Howard Passey BEng (Hons) MI FireE, education and training director of the Fire Protection Association. Howard has an honours degree in fire engineering.
– Patrick Hamblin IEng, MIFireE, formerly fire insurance surveyor with a major insurance broker and now an independent consultant. Patrick is a registered Incorporated Engineer via the Engineering Council division of the IFE.
– Chris Blake MI FireE, senior fire safety officer for Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service.
– Brian Chisholm BSc GIFireE, former head of technical fire safety at Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service and now a fire safety consultant.
– Steve Close Grad IFireE, formerly divisional officer in the fire safety policy group of London Fire Brigade and currently principal fire risk manager at the BBC.
– Steve Robinson B Eng (Hons) MIFireE, head of the fire engineering group at London Fire Brigade. Steve has an honours degree in fire engineering and is currently studying for a masters degree in the subject.
I am sure that readers will agree that this allays the fears raised in the correspondence that those who sit in judgement are not peers of applicants, or that they are less qualified or experienced than those they are assessing.
Scrutiny
Turning to the application process itself, this involves two distinct steps. The first is to consider the education, training and experience of the applicant. The purpose of this scrutiny is to establish whether, in the opinion of the panel, the applicant has a sound underpinning knowledge of the principles of fire safety. The view of the IFE is that fire risk assessment is not a new science, but merely the application of established fire safety principles in a risk proportionate manner. Accordingly, as has indeed been suggested by correspondence to FSE, those with suitable education and training as fire safety officers in local authority fire and rescue services should have little difficulty in establishing their suitability to proceed to the next stage of the process.
There is no single or prescriptive route by which the requisite knowledge must be obtained. So those with extensive education in fire safety (e.g. to HNC level or above), for example, would be deemed to need less training and experience to establish their knowledge base. Those with moderate education, such as training on courses that extend to a number of weeks, would need only to show that they have followed a reasonable programme of continuing professional development and have had an opportunity to practice their skills. At the other end of the spectrum, those with a basic fire safety education (perhaps as part of higher education in a subject allied to fire safety, or in which fire safety forms an integral part) would either need extensive experience in the practice of fire safety or less experience, but additional formal training in fire safety, to ‘top up’ their education.
As the route to knowledge is not prescriptive, each application is independently assessed by two members of the panel, who are asked to categorise education, training and experience as extensive, moderate or basic. Both reviewers need to agree that the application may progress to the second stage. In case of doubt (which is uncommon), the Institution can seek further information or can interview the applicant.
Information about the applicant’s continuing professional development is considered to be particularly important, regardless of the route followed, and it is an area in which some applications are clearly lacking. In many cases in which reviewers express doubts about applicants’ CPD, this is often also detectable at the second stage, when sample risk assessments are reviewed. It needs to be appreciated that By way of an analogy, one would not be particularly happy to seek medical advice from a doctor who qualified 30 years ago, retired five years ago but since then, never took the trouble to read journals, attend seminars and conferences and generally keep up to date in his field!
Given that this initial scrutiny is for the purpose of establishing a knowledge of the principles of fire safety, applicants who have been registered with the Engineering Council UK, via the Engineering Council division of the IFE, as Chartered Engineers or Incorporated Engineers automatically by-pass this first stage and proceed immediately to the second stage. These individuals have more than amply demonstrated a knowledge of the principles of fire safety and, as in the case of any member of a professional body such as the IFE, the code of conduct requires them to limit their activities to those in which they are competent. The registration process adopted by the Engineering Council division also involves examination of registrants’ CPD.
The second stage is to examine applicants in the field of fire risk assessments. They must be able to demonstrate that they have been carrying out fire risk assessments for at least six months, and that they have carried out at least 20 fire risk assessments relevant to the ‘stream(s)’ for which they are seeking registration – life, property protection or business interruption. However, a slightly faster process is adopted in the case of applicants who have undertaken an examinable course accredited by the IFE for the purpose of the register. In this case, the period of six months is reduced to three months, while the minimum number of fire risk assessments carried out after successful completion of the examination is five. At present, two fire risk assessment courses have been accredited by the Institution for this purpose, and a further four applications for accreditation are being progressed. It should be stressed, however, that the majority of applicants to the register base their application on the ‘experience’ route, rather than the formal training route.
The above is based on the assumption that the applicant uses some form of standard format for recording the fire risk assessment, thereby ensuring consistency. If this is not the case, the numbers of fire risk assessments are doubled. Applicants are also required to submit details of two recipients of their fire risk assessments who are prepared to act as referees. This is reduced to one referee in the case of applicants who have successfully passed the examination of an accredited course.
The sample fire risk assessments are carefully examined independently by three members of the panel. All decisions regarding registration must be unanimous, which may involve subsequent discussion by the reviewers if necessary. Again, in case of doubt, applicants may be interviewed.
The reviewers do not seek a counsel of perfection, nor endeavour to impose any unique requirements of the Institution about the format or content of the fire risk assessments. In the case of those relating to life safety the requirement is that, in the opinion of the reviewers, the fire risk assessment is suitable and sufficient to satisfy the requirements of legislation, and that it contains an action plan that is consistent with the significant findings of the fire risk assessment.
Last hurdle
I recognise that concern has been expressed in this magazine about the number of applications that are rejected. Unfortunately, the rejection rate is not something that the IFE can, or would endeavour to, control: the risk assessments examined must stand or fall on their merits. As already noted, it is not uncommon for unsuccessful applications to contain references to standards that were withdrawn many years ago, or to practices that are not current. In one particular case there was a unanimous view, not just by the three independent reviewers but by the entire panel, that if the premises in question had been inspected after completion of the applicant’s action plan, there was a strong likelihood that the enforcing authority would have issued a prohibition notice, restricting or prohibiting the use of parts of the premises.
The IFE does not believe that it would be proper to register applicants in these circumstances, regardless of the qualifications and experience that have been demonstrated in the first stage of the review process. To do so would be to let down the many successful applicants and the public, for whose use the register is intended. It would also bring potential liability for the Institution.
While the above process may, at first sight, appear bureaucratic or even daunting, the rigor of the process is necessary if the register is to have meaning and if people are to have confidence in those on it. Many applications proceed smoothly and quickly, and feedback from successful registrants regarding the processes has been very positive.
Colin Todd is chairman of the IFE’s professional review panel which deals with applications to the Institution’s register of fire risk assessors and auditors. Further information on the application process and application forms can be found at: www.ife.org.uk/frr