The History of Fire Extinguishers as we know it – follow up

Regular readers of our Blog pages may remember a post entitled “The History of the Fire Extinguisher as we know it” back in April of 2009.

The piece received quite alot of attention and drew comments from readers regarding old and obsolete fire extinguishers amongst other things.  Recent comments and responses made reference to the restoration of an old Minimax Frowave fire extinguisher possibly dating back to the 1930’s. The gentleman responsible for restoring the extinguisher has provided us with some fascinating before and after photos which can be seen below.

National Child Safety Week

This year Child Safety Week runs from 21st to 27th June with the theme “Make time for Safety”.
Children are by nature naive and inquisitive and as such can find trouble where adults can see no danger.

The number of fire incidents involving children is staggering and parents should heed the warnings that failure to educate children about the dangers of fire and playing with fire could and does have tragic consequences.

How many households actively discuss fire safety with their children, explain what to do in the event of fire, tell them the safest escape route, or how to dial 999. On modern double glazed windows the key locks are often removed and stored elsewhere. Do the kids know how to open them?

Child safety week should be a reminder to all parents to take time out to consider the worst case scenario’s and impress on their kids the real dangers of playing with matches, lighters, cleaning liquids and medicines. When you take time to think about it safety is just common sense.

Are adequate fire alarms fitted, most commonly smoke detectors and are they tested regularly?
Are medicines stored in secure cupboards or better still purpose made cabinets well out of reach of children.
Candles and tea lights are a particularly risk and cause significant numbers of fires in bedrooms.
Matches and Lighters should obviously not be left lying around for the kids to find.
Never leave the kids unsupervised in the kitchen when cooking is in progress and have a fire blanket on hand to smother flames quickly.
Don’t leave clothes and toys on the stairs or in doorways -they are an accident just waiting to happen.

Sitting down for a half hour or so with the family to discuss and explain the dangers, make a fire action plan and set some house safety rules will give parents some peace of mind and raise awareness of safety issues that will hopefully stick in the minds of the children.

As part of National Child safety week a great deal of work is being done by the emergency services and fire brigades in schools and awareness events up and down the country. Parents should do their bit and help reduce avoidable child injuries and fatalities.

Tony

Can common sense return to Health and Safety laws?

It was heartening to hear the announcement that Lord Young has been charged with the task of reviewing how our health and safety legislation is applied with the avowed intention of rolling back some of the more preposterous rules and bring some much needed common sense to the deadweight of regulations that govern our daily existence.

I wish him well but as most of the daftest legislation has been introduced through EU directives he has a tough task ahead. Virtually nothing can now be done without first conducting a risk assessment. Even the police cannot intervene to help people in dire need without first conducting a safety assessment.

Failure to anticipate every possible health and safety contingency risks litigation, actively encouraged by law firms prepared to act on pro bono terms.  Tradesmen using ladders now have to attend a ladder awareness course. Kids at school cannot play conkers and have to wear goggles when using Blue Tack. There was one classically eccentric Englishman who chose to live in a cave until evicted by his Council because the dwelling did not have sufficient fire exits.  Completely potty.

Take our fire extinguishers as an example. All the models we offer are third party tested and approved and carry the BS Kitemark if one applies. Some have Kitemark, Ship Wheel, BAFE and CE. They are also manufactured under ISO9001 quality standards and have a minimum 5 year guarantee. Every unit is also checked for damage or pressure loss before despatch. You may think that this quality assurance regime would be sufficient evidence to demonstrate to a Fire Officer that buying such an extinguisher would satisfy your legal responsibility under the RRO to ensure fire equipment is useable and in operational condition.  Not necessarily so.

The gaggle of worthies that drafted the new BS5306 Code of Practice determined that new fire extinguishers should also be retested (commissioned is the used term) when they arrive on site. This is obviously a business opportunity for Fire Maintenance companies who charge for the test and who by strange but surely unrelated coincidence had major representation on the committee that wrote the COP guidelines.

Problem is that you just can’t eliminate every risk, accident or sheer bad luck with a rule. Who can absolutely guarantee that the extinguisher pressure valve won’t fail the day after commissioning. All you can do is apply common sense and conduct regular inspections and introduce planned maintenance.

Despite our scepticism we happily oblige and offer a commissioning service to those customers who choose to comply with the BS5306 voluntary code of practice. If you are a larger outfit and have an experienced fire officer or maintenance technician we also offer a pre-delivery inspection (PDI) and test certificate.

Finally on a different note I saw an equally potty advert on the TV promoting a hands free antiseptic soap dispenser. The sales pitch was a scare tactic pointing out that the common pump type harbours trillions of nasty bacteria on the pump top that will no doubt kill you in seconds. Now as I see it the only reason you will put your hand on the plunger is if you intend to immediately wash your hands in antiseptic soap thereby ridding yourself of the problem.  Am I missing something?

Tony

RRO enforcers get a taste of their own medicine

It is the irony of all ironies that on Monday, June 07, 2010 following a request under the freedom of information act, it was disclosed that Eland House the London headquarters of Communities and Local Government – the government department that orchestrates fire safety policy in England and Wales – has been served with an enforcement notice under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 .

In a further twist the enforcement notice, dated 16 February 2010 results from a fire safety audit carried out on 26 November 2009 by the Crown Premises Inspection Group which is responsible to the government’s Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, whose unit is based – where else but in Eland House.

The report issued by the inspector from the enforcing authority, the Crown Premises Inspection Group was witheringly critical of the fire safety provisions in the building stating:

“The concepts of ‘responsible’ and ‘competent’ persons, and the duties placed upon those persons under the Order, appear not to be understood within CLG premises”.

The enforcement notice goes on to list no less than 13 breaches of the 15 Articles of the RRO relating to the duties required of the responsible person. At that time this was presumably John Denham the then secretary of state for Communities and Local Government.  Deficiencies found included what was termed the “unacceptable” policy that no one should use portable fire extinguishers in the building, the inability of the building to support the phased evacuation strategy, inadequate arrangements to ensure visitors and contractors are accounted for in an evacuation and inadequate means of escape for the number of people likely to occupy the building.

Even though Eland House is listed as Crown premises it is still subject to fire safety legislation including the RRO. Inspection and enforcement procedures are similar to those applied to commercial premises but that is where the similarities end. Crown Immunity means the responsible person cannot actually be prosecuted for the offences committed. So John Denham can sleep easy in the certain knowledge that a fine on the scale of the £400,000 metered out to New Look for less serious misdemeanors is not heading his way any time soon.

Tony

Court of Appeal to rule on fairness of RRO sentence

The Court of Appeal is expected to issue new guidelines this week on the level of fines metered out for breaches of the RRO. The appeal is mounted by New Look against its record-breaking fine of £400,000 plus a hefty £136,000 in legal costs arising from a serious fire that eventually led to the demolition if its Oxford Street store.

Hillary Ross of law firm Bond Pearce giving details at a presentation to a conference of Safety & Health Practitioners this month, maintained that there is a huge problem of consistency in sentencing across England and Wales and a lack of guidance for fire and rescue authorities in pursuing prosecutions.

She echoes my sentiments when stating “When the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into play [in October 2006], it was hoisted not just on industry but also on fire officers”, who were given no additional training, no additional guidance, and no support for the changes the law brought in.

The basis of the New Look appeal is that the punishment is disproportionate and bears no relation to fines imposed in other areas of Health and Safety.

I have long argued that the RRO gives the fire services an open season on prosecuting otherwise law abiding businesses. The figures also suggest that the fines imposed reflect ability to pay rather than the seriousness of the actual offence. This dare I say raises the prospect of fire services “actively” seeking prosecution to raise easy revenue. This is borne out by Ms Ross who also criticised fire authorities for handing out prohibition notices “like sweeties”. Under H&S rules, prohibition notices should only be used if the risk to life is so serious that operations cannot continue. A poorly conducted fire risk assessment hardly qualifies.

I think Ms Moss has a point when you look at some of the fines imposed for serious breaches of Health & Safety legislation. At New Look the offences amounted to having conducted an inadequate fire risk assessment and insufficient staff training, which led to a delayed evacuation of the premises – this judgment despite the fact that no lives were lost or injuries sustained.

Compare New Looks £536000 punishment with that dispensed earlier this year to a marble and granite manufacturing company who were fined £100,000 with £46,500 costs after a worker died and two others were injured when six tonnes of stone slabs fell on them whilst unloading an unstable and poorly restrained load.  Similarly scrap metal company Sims Group UK Ltd, who pleaded guilty to a charge under the Health and Safety at Work Act that caused the death of a driver, crushed when a one and a half tonne metal bale rolled off a scrap pile. They were fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £57,500 costs.  The figures just don’t add up under comparison.

Let’s hope the Court of Appeal will bring clarity and fairness to stop the current RRO free for all.

Finally a welcome to Bob Neil sitting Conservative MP for Bromley & Chislehurst on his elevation to Minister for Fire. It is encouraging to note he is a former leader of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority so at least has experience of the department he oversees. How refreshing this new politics is!!

Tony