With the Regulatory Reform (Fire
Safety) Order (RRO) having
been in place for more than
three years now, Keith Minster, considers
the impact that it has had on the
workplace
Introduced in October 2006, it completely
ch
With the Regulatory Reform (Fire
Safety) Order (RRO) having
been in place for more than
three years now, Keith Minster, considers
the impact that it has had on the
workplace
Introduced in October 2006, it completely
changed the regulatory landscape,by pulling
together many of the previous scattered
legislative demands on business operators
under a new risk assessment-based fire
safety regime. Central to this was the
requirement which would, in future, sit on
the 'responsible person' to conduct a full
fire risk assessment, in order to identify and
resolve any associated fire hazards.
It is an offence not to comply with the
requirements of the legislation, with the
guilty person liable to a fine or even a
custodial sentence. Yet the impact so far
would seem to have been patchy, with the
need to drive greater understanding of both
the nature of the obligation and how to
ensure compliance.
There has been a steady stream of
successful prosecutions, indicating that the
regulations have teeth. Offending
businesses have been taken to court, for
example, where no risk assessment has
taken place, fire doors have been wedged
open or there has been a lack of emergency
planning. The new regulations have been
applied to large and small firms alike, with
a number of six figure fines already
imposed on companies who have failed to
meet their obligations under the RRO.
Independent accreditation
Today, it is thought that as many as one
third of business operators are still unaware
of their responsibilities under the RRO. In
some larger organisations, for example, the
role of 'responsible person' is divided up
between different departments or divisions
and it is not clear within the organisation as
to where particular obligations lie.
However, this should no longer be the
case as unlike earlier, more fragmented
legislation, the role of the 'responsible
person' under the RRO is now clearly
defined. As a result, it is much easier for the
regulatory authorities to determine
responsibility and apportion blame in the
event of a failure to comply with the
regulations.
Having established who the ultimate
responsible person is - generally the
employer or premises owner - the issue
then arises as to how that responsibility can
be discharged to the satisfaction of the
courts.
In the event of a fire-related incident,
the responsible person must show that
adequate precautions were taken. Such
proof is best represented by a risk
assessment file or log book, which shows
how the premises has been examined and
assessed in providing adequate fire safety
protection.
This raises the issue of the level of
experience required by the person
appointed to assess fire safety. It is unlikely
that the responsible person will have the
necessary level of technical competence to
make an effective assessment themselves
and so will need to work with a specialist
third party in order to produce the
necessary report identifying any risks
associated with the existing fire safety
systems and the recommended corrective
actions.
The problem the responsible person
faces is how to choose an appropriate
provider from the huge range of businesses
offering risk assessment services. The key
to meeting their obligations is to adopt fire
safety solutions and providers that have
been independently accredited.
This does not absolve them of
culpability in the event of a breach in
complying with the terms of the RRO.
However, working with consultants,
installers and fire safety equipment
providers who have been independently
accredited is likely to provide strong
evidence of compliance. More importantly
though, it will provide a superior level of
protection to users and visitors alike, by
minimising the risk of a fire safety problem
arising in the first place.
Keith Minster, is the sales manager UK
and Ireland, Morley-IAS by Honeywell
