The RISCAuthority (“The Risk Insight, Strategy and Control Authority”, formerly InFireS), who organized the Seminar, represents many UK insurers with a remit to research and develop risk mitigation measures against fire and security risks. It publishes extensive guides and recommendations for risk mitigation in the areas of Fire and Security. The Risc Authority’s seminar was held in the wake of recent large fires in timber frame buildings and construction sites in London.

I am quite a fan of Timber Frame houses particularly the more aesthetically pleasing homes I have seen featured on Grand Designs. The Timber framed constructions at the centre of this story were more pragmatic multi occupancy affordable housing that utilized the twin benefits of using environmentally sustainable materials and being quick and presumably cheaper to construct than the usual concrete and steel methods.

As far as I can make out timber framed buildings present no greater risk from fire than conventional constructions and pretty detailed industry standards and building regulations are in place to ensure it stays that way. The evidence suggests the greatest fire risk is during construction rather than in completed buildings.

This begs the question as to how the Regulatory Reform (Fire safety) Order applies to construction sites. Clearly it must but by their very nature the potential fire risks on construction sites will be a constantly moving target, giving the Responsible Persons quite a headache to ensure conformity during every stage of the process.

There is also the cost factor. Economic reality dictates that although site safety is clearly paramount it is impracticable to be conducting interminable Risk Assessments and implementing fire measures that are quickly redundant.

The fire safety industry has come up with some solutions. Standalone and linkable fire call points and alarms like the Howler range can be installed to suit the site conditions and adapt to changing size. They have the benefit that at the end of construction they can be quickly dismantled and moved to the next site.

Wheeled mobile fire extinguishers are also ideal for this application and can be quickly deployed to counter a fire in any area of the site. Again once the job is done they can be easily moved to a new site location. They also have a far higher fire rating than the smaller portables with capacities up to 100litres.

The RRO also requires specialist construction site signage. This can get expensive if using the corrugated plastic and foam board versions as they are easily damaged and vandalised. The new TUFF Site Signs are virtually indestructible and despite being more expensive they work out cheaper in the long run as they can be used time and time again. The site safety manager therefore has the means to put together a mobile package of fire and safety equipment that can be deployed to suit individual site conditions.

Tony

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

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:

• Your store a maximum capacity of 200 litres and/or it is located in a building or underground (as in a garage)
• Your business is used for refining or distributing oil
• You operate a farm or wholly agricultural business
• You store waste oil

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

The right to publish the database has been the subject of a two-year legal tussle by the newspaper, which ended when a freedom of information tribunal ruled that it was in the public interest to release the data. It shows that more than 90% of higher education institutions had at least 10% of their buildings classified as below the level deemed “sound and operationally safe”.  Some Universities had more than 40% of buildings classed as inoperable.

How the Hefce, a government funded Quango, could be granted a legal platform to argue that information on the safety of our university students was not an issue of public interest seems unbelievable. Of course the delaying tactic meant that these buildings could remain “operable” in the interim, and also meant that now the Universities can claim the data to be out of date. They duly responded to the forced publication by saying they have invested millions of pounds in their buildings since the assessments were made two years ago. So I suppose the fifty grand of tax payer cash spent in legal cost by the Hefce to stop publication was not just a cynical ploy by its paymasters to kick the issue into the long grass?

What is farcical is that we will probably never get to know the extent of remedial action taken. The length of time it takes between commissioning an “official” investigation and publishing its findings will always provide scope to claim “major improvements” have been made since collecting the data. Round and round it goes.

As the revelations come just a week after the government announced that university grants for capital projects, such as new buildings, would be cut by 14.9% in cash terms to £562m in 2010-11, it is hard to see Vice-chancellors having the funds for new building and fire safety improvements any time soon even with the low cost of fire safety equipment.

One possible solution presents itself. Why don’t the law enforcers treat education in the same way they treat businesses and send in the fire inspectors to check for breaches of the Regulatory Reform (fire safety) Order?  The secret database indicates the sector should be a happy hunting ground for fire safety breeches and the fines raised from subsequent prosecutions can be redirected to upgrades. In the process it will also make our kids a good deal safer in their places of learning.

When it comes to ethical priorities the much vaunted political mantra “Education, Education, Education”, should surely be preceded by “Safety, Safety, Safety”! The funding should be provided to Universities and Schools to ensure this.

To view the full Secret data click here

Tony

At the same time environmentalists blinded by the quest for renewable energy are also supporting the construction of some 2000 additional onshore Wind Turbines 80 meters in height, many in plain sight of residential communities on otherwise pristine countryside.

The irony of the Scottish Highland project is that the pylons are primarily for distribution of Scotland’s renewable energy production – the holy grail of environmentalists and loony Greens – and will safeguard supplies for countless businesses and homes.

In an article in todays Yorkshire post it transpires that during the prolonged cold spell our existing wind turbines were running at as little as 5% efficiency due to lack of wind. It gets worse as apparently these monolithic white elephants only work in the right kind of wind. They have to be shut down in gales and storms, aka when the energy in the wind is highest, to prevent damage.

This is the Achilles heel of the whole wind power renewable argument. Although the odd politician can claim to save the World, not one (as yet) can control the wind. How can we possibly base a coherent energy policy on an unknown quantity?

They are also fairly complex machines and apparently at any one time 10% are out of commission anyway awaiting repairs. Who bears the cost of this lunacy – the consumer who else.
The claimed economic benefit is also tempered by the fact that these turbines are all made overseas. There is not a single manufacturer in the UK.

Our energy to date has come from the application of heat, generated from fossil or nuclear fuels the latter carbon neutral. For me it is the only sensible way to go and the billions spent on the quest for renewables would be better spent on developing clean fuel technologies based on the abundant natural resources we can harness from within the UK.

At Fire and Safety Centre we are concerned primarily with safety both of the individual and the business customers we support, providing reliable and proven fire and safety products to combat the unexpected and unforeseen, Without securing an equally reliable and proven source of energy for our future the safety of society itself is put at risk. This is a far greater clear and present danger than climate change.

Tony

The euphoria amongst the proponents may well be short lived as the Welsh vote is only the first step and now needs to be formally approved in both houses of Westminster before the legislation can receive Royal assent. Allocating parliamentary time this side of the General Election seems highly unlikely and the new incoming Administration may not be so keen on supporting such legislation.

Not that I am in any way against the wider use of automatic sprinklers but I do see some difficulties in enforcing any legislation. The powerful construction industry lobby may well have something to say as it will add a few thousand pounds to building costs.  There is also the issue of ensuring regular maintenance and testing which is essential with Automatic Sprinkler Systems and will represent an ongoing annual cost for the householder.

Private and self build home builders could well argue that other equally effective options are available in the form of smoke alarms and the more versatile domestic friendly fire extinguishers like the ABF, that are already reducing the incidence of deaths and injuries from domestic fires.  The figures bear this out with official statistics showing sustained year on year falls in death and injuries from domestic fires.

I also think Ronnie King, vice-chairman of the National Fire Sprinkler Network was letting enthusiasm get the better of his judgement in claiming the move would lead to making Wales the safest place in which to live in the United Kingdom. He went so far as comparing Residential Sprinklers to the installation of air bags in cars and added that “in the course of time fire deaths in Wales will be almost eliminated, and the horrific burns injuries reduced by up to 80% because of this wonderful visionary decision taken by the Welsh Assembly government.”

Now the current housing stock in Wales according to the latest Government statistics is 1.4million homes or thereabouts virtually none of which have, or will ever have sprinklers fitted. New house builds are running at around 5000 per year and demolitions at less than 100 a year.  You don’t need to do the detailed math’s to see that “in the course of time” to reduce injuries by 80% will take a very, very long time indeed to achieve with sprinklers alone. Centuries in fact.  It is akin to saying the World will end on Wednesday without specifying which Wednesday.

With the exception of multi occupancy complexes – where careless or reckless homeowners can put other residents at risk – legislation is arguably not the answer. A continuance of the high profile fire safety awareness campaigns, the free smoke alarm scheme and the low cost of alternative fire safety equipment will continue to make our homes a safer place. Promoting the undoubted benefits of sprinkler systems should obviously continue, but on the basis of choice and affordability rather than law enforcement.

Tony

Not withstanding my role as a dispenser of the accumulated wisdom of fire protection and personal safety it cannot hurt to offer some insight into this 200 year old tradition.
Burns Night is to all intents a second national day in Scotland and is now celebrated on the 25th January with Burns suppers held, not just in Scotland, but all around the world.  It is thought Burns Night is now more widely observed than Saint Andrew’s Day the Scots official national day which falls on 30th November.

It is regrettable that in England our multicultural obsessed, politically correct, minority appeasing establishment denies us the pleasure of celebrating St Georges Day as our National ENGLISH day. They have no sense of being and are all Scots anyway.

The Scots, in keeping with the Welsh and Irish have no such phobias at flying their National flag. The first Burns supper was held in 1802 at The Mother Club in Greenock on 29 January on what they thought was his birthday, barely 5 years after his untimely death in July 1796 as the age of 37.  In 1803 they discovered from the Parish records that his actual birth date was 25 January 1759 and Burns suppers have been held on that day ever since.

The basic format of a Burns Supper has barely changed over the years so if you attend one this is what you can expect. It starts with a general welcome and announcements, followed with the Selkirk Grace. After the grace, comes the piping in (that’s bag piping) and cutting of the haggis, to the refrain of Burns’ famous poem “Address To a Haggis” that culminates in cutting the haggis open.
I warn you that all this is spoken in the 18th century Scottish dialect so unless you are of Celtic persuasion or a Burns aficionado you will understand little. The first verse goes:
Fair fa’ your honest, sonsie face,
Great chieftain o’ the puddin’-race!
Aboon them a’ ye tak yer place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy o’ a grace
As lang’s my airm.

The event usually allows for people to start eating just after the haggis is presented. This is followed by the reading called the “immortal memory”, an overview of Burns’ life and work. In full blown versions other often less austere speeches are given including by the “lassies” but the event usually concludes with the singing of Auld Lang Syne also penned by the Scottish Bard.

Haggis by the way is quite tasty despite containing minced sheep’s ‘pluck’ (heart, liver and lungs), with onion, oatmeal, suet, spices and salt, all of which is traditionally simmered for hours in a sheep’s stomach. These days a synthetic edible casing is often used. More appealing perhaps is that Haggis is traditionally washed down with Whisky.

So there you go. Burns Night in 500 words. If Haggis is not your thing Sausage and Chips is the poor man’s version. That brings me back to setting fire to the chip pan and a chance to plug our new Class F (ABF) Fire extinguisher!!! Well what did you expect?

Tony

Then I read last week that leaseholders who had purchased property in Tower blocks operated by Southwark Council were being asked to pay for “crucial fire safety works” identified from a “recent” Fire Risk Assessment. Council tenants living in the same blocks on the other hand are to pay nothing. And it is not a small sum either at an average of £10k per property.

Apart from the obvious and unfair discrimination the question I have is that as the Council has had as much time as any business to conduct a Fire Risk Assessment, had the buildings previously been cleared as safe under the new or even the old legislation? If they had been cleared as safe how come it is going to cost £4million to bring them into compliance? If not why has it taken over 4 years to conduct a Fire Risk Assessment? No business would get away with this.

You may recall the fire last year at Lakanal House tower block in nearby Camberwell  that claimed six lives. The official report on this tragedy is still awaited but it seems obvious to conclude the building was a fire risk. If this proves to be the case, will the Landlord aka the Council be fined for non compliance under the RRO? I doubt it.

The unfortunate leaseholders in Southwark are opposing the charge for fire safety improvements and I wish them luck but I also wonder if Councils have the same obligation as mere mortals to provide HIP’s for the properties they sell? The owners could have a case for misrepresentation as they were clearly not told at the point of purchase that the fire safety provisions were inadequate and they were buying a potential fire trap.

For more information on Fire Risk Assessments visit our Advice pages or go to www.communities.gov.uk/fire/firesafety/firesafetylaw/aboutguides/ If you need some help in completing a Risk Assessment take a look at our self help tutorials and manuals. We can also arrange a professional Fire Risk Assessment and Action Report.

Tony

The effects of the snow on our daily lives has exposed the more bizarre consequences of our risk averse society. Schools closed because of the risk that teachers and children may hurt themselves getting to school. Even if the school is open the kids can’t play outside for the same reason and snow ball fights are banned. It seems everything we now do must be first subject to a Risk Assessment. In practice a life cannot be lived without exposure to risk. I actually think taking risks is what drives our progress.

Of course in the fire protection industry we are only too aware of the term Risk Assessment since the introduction of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRO). In some respects this legislation was a step forward in consolidating the myriad pieces of fire safety legislation that existed previously.

The fundamental difference is that the legal responsibility for fire safety within business premises is now firmly in the court of the business owner or “responsible person” as defined under the Act. It is not a defence against non compliance to claim you don’t have the first idea about fire safety. The basics are pretty straightforward common sense.

There are five key steps in conducting a fire risk assessment:

1. Identify the fire hazards – how could a fire start? For a fire to start it needs a fuel, heat and oxygen. Identify any possible source of ignition and combustible materials. Mostly you can assume oxygen is present unless you operate in a vacuum!!

2. Consider who may be a risk -  your employees, visitors, and particularly people vulnerable such as children, the elderly and disabled.

3. Assess and act – Based on these considerations and findings, assess the risks and take action to remove and reduce any fire risks. Typically his may involve adding a fire extinguisher, smoke alarm or exit sign, replacing obsolete equipment or better housekeeping.

4. Record, plan and train – Maintain a record of the risks identified (legally required for businesses employing 5 or more) together with the actions taken to reduce or remove them.  Produce a fire action plan of how to prevent fires and safety procedures should a fire start.  Train staff so they know what to do in the event of a fire and if necessary provide training in the use of fire safety equipment.

5. Review – Review your risk assessment on a regular basis to ensure it remains up to date with any changes made to your organisation.

If in carrying out a risk assessment you decide, as the responsible person, that due to the type or complexity of the business, you just don’t have the necessary skills, you can always appoint an external competent person to do it for you. Most reputable fire safety equipment suppliers offer this service including Fire and Safety Centre.

The bottom line is that a Fire Risk Assessment just has to be done to comply with the Law.

Tony

Not like it feels anything other than Polar outdoors. Most of northern Europe and great swathes of North America are also enduring their worst winter in decades and if the weather forecasters are right – (often a contradiction in terms) – there is a lot more of the same to come.

In my village there are patches of ice that fell as snow over two weeks ago still covering pavements and paths making it treacherous under foot, particularly for the elderly.  The NHS has also reported a massive rise in A & E admissions with ankle and wrist fractures from falls and the AA and RAC are stretched to the limit with car accidents.

Unfortunately these days you are counted lucky if your Council or Transport Agency salt and grit the main roads and the days are long gone when they cleared footpaths.  If Local Authorities had DNA then Service Delivery would always spiral down one helix whilst the cost of diminishing Service Delivery spiralled up the other.

The only solution when it comes to personal safety is self help, self awareness and consideration for others. If you are fit and able volunteer to clear access paths and walkways for older and less agile neighbours. Clear the pavement outside your own property and chances are others will follow suit. By the way it is far easier to clear fresh snow before it gets compacted or part frozen.

An ex-teacher I spoke to the other day was bemoaning the fact that so many schools now closed due to snow. He said that Health and Safety issues and our overbearing liability laws meant teachers were loath to clear snow and allow kids to play in snow on school premises for fear they may hurt themselves and sue for damages. When did common sense leave the room? I don’t envisage Councils and Government will pay up for the broken bones caused by failures in their Duty of Care to the taxpayer.

Tony