Join our Mailing List!
Sign up to receive our regular emails with details of new products and special offers.
Sign up to receive our regular emails with details of new products and special offers.
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
A quick update on an important addition to the Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order 2005. The new regulation is cited in the usual legal disguise as the Fire Safety (Employees’ Capabilities) (England) Regulations 2010 and came into force on 6th April 2010.
As is increasingly the case the new law applies only to England as our devolved parliaments have either yet to ratify it or fire safety compliance training has been mandatory in Welsh, Scottish and Ulster infants schools since the second world war. The following is the complete citation from the edict.
“Employer to take employees’ capabilities into consideration
2. Every employer must, in entrusting tasks to employees, take into account their capabilities as regards health and safety, so far as those capabilities relate to fire.”
It is signed by authority of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government one Shahid Malik who presumably after his defeat on May 6th is now spending more time with his family.
What the new edict means in essence is that an employer cannot offload any of his responsibility for fire safety onto an employee unless that employee has demonstrable expertise in fire safety issues, which excludes just about everybody. You will also need to find a deputy fire officer to cover absence.
This set me thinking that when the RRO was introduced the Government effectively saddled every employer, landlord, business owner and some tenants – as defined by law – with responsibility for adherence to the new RRO fire safety regulatory regime. Now surely they knew that they were offloading this responsibility arbitrarily to individuals without first checking if they were possessed of the capabilities to undertake the task.
A clear case of do what I say not what I do.
If you want to elevate a member of staff to the position of fire safety officer I suggest to avail yourself of one or more of our excellent fire safety awareness staff training programme’s that will allow you to train all your staff to a level that will meet the new regulatory framework.
Tony
At Southampton Crown Court on the 26th April the Co-operative Group was fined a whopping £210,000 after pleading guilty to half a dozen breaches of the new RRO fire safety legislation.
Clearly the CO-OP have been slow to learn the lessons of a similar case brought against the UK’s largest mutual retailer in 2007 that saw them fined what was then a record £250,000 for no less than 13 similar misdemeanors under the old fire safety regulations.
The case came hot on the heels of a Court ruling against the behemoth of retailing Tesco a week earlier which resulted in a fine of £95,000 plus over £24,000 in costs for five breaches of the RRO (Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005). That’s £24,000 per infringement. Other high profile cases last year included Shell International being fined £300,000 and the clothes store New Look paying more than £500,000.
Apparently the Tesco fine arose when the London Fire Brigade were called to a fire at Tesco’s Colney Hatch store in Barnet in October 2007. There had been a fire in the staff kitchen but by the time the Brigade arrived it had been put out by staff using fire extinguishers and a fire blanket. Now you might think the action of the staff commendable and showed a working knowledge of how to use fire safety equipment effectively but the fire service thought otherwise and returned unannounced the next day to fully inspect the premises.
Now the London Fire Brigade has previous when it comes to RRO enforcement and not without some fanfare recently announced that the London courts ordered individuals, small businesses and large companies to pay more than £1 million in fines and costs in 2009 for breaches of the RRO.
So what’s my point? Well firstly by any stretch the RRO is not a simple piece of legislation. It runs close to 150 pages and over 30000 words. If retail giants who have the resources to employ professional fire and health and safety management can get it so wrong what chance the small businessman or woman who as the responsible person has the same accountability under law irrespective of their experience in fire safety issues. Not understanding the detail of the law is no defence. Within the RRO legislation there is the potential for hundreds of breaches. If someone looked hard enough you would be lucky to pass muster.
And secondly given the Tesco experience small businesses, without the same financial clout may think twice about calling the Fire Services if they fear a punitive inspection with potentially disastrous consequences.
Of course fire safety is paramount to protect life and property and I would not argue otherwise but personally I do not believe sufficient is being invested by the law makers on educating businesses and raising awareness of the RRO. This comes through strongly when talking to business owners and managers who make up our customer base and no doubt accounts for the increase in sales of our fire safety training programmes. All the cash raised through RRO prosecutions could surely be put to good use here rather than lining the Treasury pockets.
Tony
I have spent some time of late looking at UK Legislation relating to the storage of hazardous goods so that we can better inform our customers on the new range of Safety Storage Cabinets and Security Chests recently added to our portfolio.
In doing so I chanced upon an illuminating website www.statutelaw.gov.uk that lists all the Primary Statutes of Law enacted in the UK over the years and a good many Secondary Statutory Instruments (sub Laws I guess) that also apply to the immensely tolerant People of these Islands. The list includes our Business Law of the moment – the daunting Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Although I thought we had the Fire Safety legislation pretty well covered in fact there are 144 pieces of fire safety legislation in the list so maybe we will have to revisit this.
In all there are 5571 Statute Laws dating back to the Statute of Marlborough in 1267, although King Johns signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 effectively set the earliest seeds for a modern day Westminster.
What astonished me was that over 1000 of these Statutes of the Realm have been enacted since 1997 – that’s the year of our lord Tony Blair by the way. Put in context that’s 20% of all Laws passed in 13 of the 700 odd Years since Parliament was effectively created under King Henry III (give or take the odd Dissolution). Add to this 500 plus Statutory Instruments since 2005 alone and I doubt we can fault our disgraced Parliament for effort.
Some of these Laws make you wonder just how over regulated we are. There is seemingly a Law for doing most everything apart from breathing.
We have little gems like “The Parking Attendants (Wearing of Uniforms Act) South Lanarkshire 2005″ and “The Potatoes Originating in Egypt (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2005″. I bet you also didn’t know there is a law that states that it is illegal to offer a fully assembled bicycle for sale without a bell “which is of a category intended for use on bicycles”. There is of course a separate law for unassembled bicycles and why not!
Maybe our legislators should refresh their memory of the Statute of Marlborough which in short put the following into the Law of the Land some of which sounds is eerily resonant of today’s troubled times.
“It was Provided and established and with full consent ordained, That whereas the Realm of England having been of late depressed by manifold Troubles and the evils of Dissensions, (it is) in need of a Reformation of the Laws and Usages, whereby the Peace and Tranquility of the People both high (bred) and low may be preserved …….forever.”
Like a good deal of the freedoms and human rights provided in the Magna Carta, Marlborough’s Law no doubt has been repealed since.
Tony
Much has already been said in these pages regarding Fire Risk Assessments but the legal requirements for Risk Assessments in your place of work doesn’t stop there.
Regulations
The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002, also requires you to ensure chemicals and dangerous substances stored, used or sold from the workplace are stored and handled in a way that minimise the attendant risk to employees and visitors of exposure to these substances. You must also ensure that you also minimize the risk of environmental damage through leaks and spills.
DSEAR (Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002) is a further set of regulations concerned specifically with protection against risks from fire, explosion and similar events arising from dangerous substances used or present in the workplace.
Risk assessment
As with Fire Risk Assessments the COSHH and DSEAR risk assessment require employers (and the self employed) to conduct a detailed examination of the work place and working practices to identify any dangerous substances present or liable to be present in the workplace; the work activities involving them and an assessment of any risks (like sources of ignition) that may cause a fire, explosion and similar events that have potential to harm employees and the public.
Conducting a Risk Assessment requires a combination of knowledge of the substances used in the workplace, the hazards they pose and a fairly common sense approach to what constitutes a risk. It is then a case of implementing precautions that minimise this risk. Some typical examples are given below.
Store hazardous chemicals in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions in an appropriate container or cabinet clearly marked with a Hazard warning label. A range of cabinets designed to meet COSHH and DSEAR regulations are available.
Store the minimum quantity of hazardous substances necessary.
Look at the manufacturer’s safety data sheet and store incompatible substances separately.
Keep a spill kit close to storage areas to contain and clean up and leaks or spills that occur. Most approved flammable liquid and COSHH storage cabinets have inbuilt spillage sumps.
Issue staff with appropriate protective clothing (PPE) and ensure adequate ventilation when handling substances.
Make sure that any employees that handle dangerous substances are aware of what to do in the event of a spill or fire.
A risk assessment is required regardless of the quantity of dangerous substance present, and as like the Regulatory reform (fire safety) Order legislation, if you have 5 or more employees you must keep a physical record of the assessment and actions taken.
Finally if your business has oil storage containers, the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 or the Water Environment (Oil Storage) (Scotland) Regulations 2006 may apply.
The oil storage regulations apply if you store oil above ground in containers with a capacity of more than 200 litres. The regulations define Oil to include petrol, heating oil, vegetable and plant oil, and heavy oils such as bitumen and solvents.
You are not affected by the regulations if:
More reading on DSEAR can be found at http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg370.pdf and
COSHH at http://www.coshh-essentials.org.uk/
Tony
