A test case for the Fire Regulatory Reform Order?
December 1st 2007

The recent blaze which killed four firefighters at a food packaging warehouse in Atherstone Warwickshire raised questions about the effectiveness of on-site fire safety procedures. Trevor Dean of National Britannia explains how new fire rules should help prevent such tragedies and offers advice on compliance

Lines of enquiry following the Warwickshire warehouse blaze in November remain open with no outcomes expected until New Year at least.

Initial reports revealed that no sprinkler system was in place at the massive vegetable packing facility, although plans were apparently in place to install one. If this turns out to be the case, the incident may become a possible test case for the 2005 Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order regarded as the biggest overhaul of fire regulations for a generation.

So what impact are these reformed regulations having on businesses and other organisations responsible for ensuring fire safety in the workplace?

Regulatory Fire Reform The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order which came into force November 2006 is designed to simplify a complex maze of legislation and regulation, streamlining around 132 separate sets of rules into one.

The order places the onus on those who own or run facilities to take primary responsibility for assessing fire risks fully and creating action plans to manage those risks effectively.

The rules are no longer prescriptive so the old fire certificate is no longer a comfort blanket. The duty-holder or a competent person appointed by them must make the judgment on what is required and be accountable under the law for that judgment.

This puts the focus on the alleged absence of sprinklers in the Atherstone warehouse. Although it appears that sprinklers in the warehouse would have been a legal requirement, one could ask whether an adequate fire assessment would have indicated that – given all the circumstances – installing such equipment was a sensible precaution to take.

Under old regulations the issue of a fire certificate would theoretically at least have absolved the owners from blame, as it would have implied that procedures and fire fighting equipment were in order.

Now it remains to be seen whether the duty-holder must justify why he or his appointed expert did not believe the sprinklers were needed.

In addition to the new burden of responsibility for risk assessment the regulations have greatly increased the number of premises which must accept this responsibility.

Where previously only workplaces with over 20 people needed a fire certificate the new onus applies to nondomestic premises of all sizes.

Risk assessment and audit tips The risk assessment should pinpoint the potential fire hazards and establish the likelihood of a blaze starting and spreading. This must also give due consideration to the type of people at risk, for example elderly residents would be a significantly higher risk.

Responsible persons should look critically at the premises and identify obvious and less obvious hazards and risks. Following the initial inspection, an action plan must be formulated and implemented to manage the risk effectively.

The people carrying out the assessment must be competent to do this. The skills and qualifications required will vary according to the level of risk involved.

In low-risk cases staff with the correct training can follow Government guidelines to create an action plan.

Where there is a higher 'life risk' external professional support is strongly recommended.

This includes multi-occupancy buildings. In the Warwickshire case over 300 workers, including many non- English speaking migrants were employed to work shifts.

This presented risks in itself. If, as was alleged, some workers were sleeping at the factory, this would have placed it in an even higher risk category with further more stringent rules being applied as it would fall under a premises providing sleeping accommodation.

Clear conclusions will probably not be drawn until investigations into this incident yield more facts. However there is a general belief that a new attitude and culture about fire risk is emerging in the wake of the Reform Order.

While there is still widespread ignorance of the new rules, actions are being taken to raise awareness. The fire service has attempted to undertake enforcement visits with a particular focus on high 'life risk' facilities.

Nevertheless, with the onus taken from the fire authorities and placed solely upon 'duty holders', there is a greater focus on ensuring compliance. The new rules allow for fines of up to £5,000 per offence incurred at magistrate's court or up to two years imprisonment with unlimited fines at Crown Court.

Of course, with the implementation of Corporate Manslaughter legislation in April, the implications for larger businesses could be much worse. If a fire death, caused by non-compliance with the Reform Order, can be traced back to management failing at the top, then fines of up to 10% of turnover could be imposed on a firm, along with a publicity order forcing it to accept blame through media advertisements.

More articles from National Britannia Group: