Prescribed competency

COMPETENCY HAS been the main topic of debate within the fire safety industry for a long time now, with the discussion intensified whenever errors are made. Such errors can result in potentially avoidable fires occurring. An obvious example is the disastrous Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 which served to highlight major construction industry and fire safety issues in not just that building, but multiple others across the entirety of the UK.

Justifiably, the tragic blaze at Grenfell Tower continues to be headline news right up to this day, with the ongoing Public Inquiry and particular actions taken by Government – notably the recently announced £30 million Waking Watch Relief Fund – in a determined bid to alleviate fire safety concerns.

Looking back over the last year, there are many parallels to be found between fire safety and the current COVID-19 pandemic, with safety measures being implemented in the interests of critical life safety. An important initial comparison is that both the Coronavirus and most fire safety actions cannot be seen, but it’s understandably of extreme importance to realise safeguards for both. If anything, members of the public have been exposed to a far greater visual and environmental change in terms of virus protection, while fire safety systems and provisions themselves continue to remain somewhat invisible.

Despite some flaws around the definition of competency, fire safety legislation is very good here in the UK. It outlines duties that premises management should be enacting to protect people, buildings and property from the risk of fire. This is a major reason as to why we don’t witness many fires in commercial/non-domestic buildings.

However, what can be overlooked is the competency of organisations contracted to design, install and commission vital fire safety systems and those tasked with performing routine maintenance, leaving luck alone to safeguard people from fire risk. There is extremely good guidance available regarding fire safety practices that should be followed to ensure buildings are – and, importantly, continue to be – protected from fire risk as best as possible.

Guidance equals action

Government Coronavirus guidance that was introduced and issued throughout 2020 (and now into 2021) has been quickly followed by premises management. This ongoing guidance has not been perceived as merely a series of recommendations and, instead, has been followed due to the necessity for protecting people within a given building. The aim is to continue the building’s intended function as best as possible (when permitted to do so and while observing tier and lockdown restrictions).

Indeed, this was observed by Dame Judith Hackitt during a BESA webinar last May 2020. Dame Judith stated COVID-19 has demonstrated to her that the construction and fire safety industries are “capable of massive change, at pace, when we need to do so.”

There’s a key question arising from this. Although recommended competency levels are stipulated within Government fire safety guidance, why has this not been adopted as the base level standard of requirements when sourcing a provider to fulfil these important obligations?

Multiple Government fire safety guidance documents are available, among them ‘Fire Safety Risk Assessment – Offices and Shops: Section 8 – Quality Assurance of Fire Protection Equipment and Installation’. It states: “Fire protection products and related services should be fit for their purpose and properly installed and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions or the relevant British Standard. Third party certification schemes for fire protection products and related services are an effective means of providing the fullest possible assurances, offering a level of quality, reliability and safety that non-certificated products [and services] may lack. This does not mean goods and services that are not third party approved are less reliable, but there is no obvious way in which this can be demonstrated.”

Further, the Government guidance also observes: “Third party quality assurance can offer comfort both as a means of satisfying you that goods and services you have purchased are fit for purpose, and as a means of demonstrating that you have complied with the law.”

Support in guidance

The recommendation for using third party-certificated organisations is supported by additional guidance issued by the National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), Fire and Rescue Services and multiple industry trade bodies, all of them with a particular focus on the important action of establishing and maintaining a fire risk assessment. For example, in its own published ‘Guidance Document A: Guide to Choosing a Competent Fire Risk Assessor’, the NFCC observes: “The competence of a company to deliver fire risk assessments can be demonstrated by third party certification of that company by a UKAS-accredited certification body.”

This belief is reiterated by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service guidance (ie ‘Advice on Fire Safety: Choosing a Competent Fire Risk Assessor’), with that organisation going on to state: “The benefit of company certification is that the [UKAS-accredited] certification body monitors the quality of the certificated company’s work and confirms that there is a system for management of quality within the certificated company.”

Why is UKAS-accredited third party certification so important? Put simply, this is because (and as outlined on the UKAS website): “UKAS accreditation provides an assurance of the competence, impartiality and integrity of conformity assessment bodies.”

Certification issued by a body accredited by UKAS is the best assurance and evidence of an organisation’s competency to deliver a specific service under a quality management system that’s in situ. UKAS continues to remain the sole national accreditation body for the UK recognised by Government. This means that any other non-UKAS accredited organisational certification achieved must be scrutinised further, in turn creating more work for premises management such that they can then ensure they’re choosing an appropriate provider to help fulfil their bespoke requirements.

BAFE continues to be adamant that only UKAS-accredited third party-certificated organisations should be used to deliver competent fire safety works and that this should be mandated by Government. That scenario would align perfectly with gas engineering competency work having to confirm to the rules laid down by Gas Safe.

For its part, the fire safety industry stands ready to assist Government in terms of the necessary regulation. As mentioned, fire safety legislation across the UK demands a far greater definition of what the word ‘competent’ really means. This would greatly assist in creating a more competent fire safety industry.

Ambiguity still exists

Last November, Jonathan O’Neill (managing director of the Fire Protection Association) directly addressed Lord Greenhalgh (Minister of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) during the Fire 2020 event. O’Neill observed: “However reassuring the word ‘competent’ feels, it’s simply not prescriptive for life safety-critical services that support fire. While I’m fully supportive of the work led by the Construction Industry Council on its competence framework and the building blocks are there, ambiguity still exists. The simple way of ensuring competence is by way of independent third party certification. The Government has recognised this for many years in the regulation of the gas industry. We now need to embrace it in fire. Don’t restrict it to risk assessments. Rather, extend it to those supplying life safety fire protection equipment and services. Currently, there’s no consistent definition of what competency looks like for fire risk assessors, building managers, installers or the maintainers of active or passive fire protection systems.”

When looking to source competent advice in making use of external assistance, one thing the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) stresses to be important for consideration is to “check for evidence of relevant training/knowledge”. The HSE also points towards asking yourself the question: “Can they explain why they are competent to advise you on your particular problem?” BAFE feels that UKAS-accredited third party certification satisfies these HSE principles, with the external provider holding independent evidence of their competency.

This level of certification does have its critics. From our perspective, you would in the main be referencing the unregulated segment of the fire safety industry. BAFE argues over this point with premises management by posing the question: “What reason do you have for not choosing a third party-certificated provider?” There’s now such a wide range of such third party-certificated business that you can refine your choices without loss of competition.

Plenty of solution providers out there claim third party certification isn’t necessary, but who’s assessing their competency? This level of certification is an extremely significant executive decision and demonstrates a willingness to be prepared to accept any ‘pockets of incompetence’, learn and develop from this and, thereafter, continue to operate as a competent provider.

Complacency kills

We can also compare the current situation of the Coronavirus pandemic to fire safety when focusing on the growing problem of complacency. In response to the vaccine being rolled out, Prime Minister Boris Johnson observed: “My worry is that this is the moment when a degree of false confidence and false complacency creeps in. When you look at what has happened in the NHS, that complacency is in no way merited.”

BBC News summarised this statement quite appropriately: “Don’t let vaccine breed complacency,” says Johnson. This example shows that, when people have the impression certain factors make things safer, complacency can enter the equation at a blistering pace, allowing lapses in judgement to occur.

Fire safety is another part of life safety where complacency can be fatal. Routine testing and maintenance are always required to ensure fire systems and provisions continue to remain fully operational and react suitably in the event of an emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has displayed that premises management can and will follow Government guidance to remain safe and continue operation. Why, then, is fire safety falling behind when this is also a vital life safety provision? Lack of enforcement could be part of the problem.

The BAFE Fire Safety Register would like to see greater enforcement of fire safety legislation across the UK. Ideally, this would focus primarily on high-risk and largely populated commercial buildings (such as online retail warehouses/distribution centres), but then filter down to smaller premises with random spot checks by dedicated – and, importantly, well-funded – fire safety enforcement teams.

The Fire and Rescue Services need greater support and funding to enforce this message on a stronger footing and develop a culture wherein people believe they will be caught and fittingly prosecuted in the wake of any proven breaches of fire safety legislation.

The resilience of the fire safety industry throughout 2020 demonstrated an excellent response to the COVID-19 pandemic by clients and providers alike. Our message throughout the pandemic has been clear: fire safety legislation is still being enforced and should continue to be followed in the interest of life safety. BAFE has been consistent in advising the industry that it should remain in contact with its clients to ensure their fire safety obligations continue to be met. This has not been an easy time for any business, but it’s absolutely the case that fire safety must never be overlooked.

Stephen Adams is CEO of BAFE (www.bafe.org.uk)