Needs of responsible person to be key in national risk assessor scheme - News-content | Fire safety news events and jobs - info4fire

Needs of responsible person to be key in national risk assessor scheme

14 April 2010

The move towards a nationally recognised quality assurance scheme for fire risk assessors has stepped up a gear with the appointment of Iain Cox, the Chief Fire Officers Association’s director of prevention and protection, as chair of an expanded working group.

The group – made up of representatives from professional bodies, trade associations and certification bodies – had previously met under the auspices of the Communities and Local Government department, and was set up following last year’s government report into the impact of the Fire Safety Order 2005. That report highlighted concerns over the variable quality of fire risk assessments and the need to clarify who has an appropriate level of competence.

The working group is aiming to conclude a set of competency criteria to carry out fire risk assessments, and has agreed that the needs of the ‘responsible person’ should be central to its work. The criteria could then be used for individual certification schemes – accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) – both for individuals and companies offering risk assessment services.

Last year, Warrington Certification announced a third party certification scheme for fire risk assessors accredited by the UKAS. In 2008, the Fire Industry Association (FIA) established its risk assessment council for companies providing risk assessment services. The FIA is now working with BAFE to develop a competency scheme for such companies, in parallel to the work being carried out on individual risk assessors.

Other professional bodies – such as the Institution of Fire Engineers and the Institute of Fire Safety Managers – run their own registration schemes for individual fire risk assessors.

Martin Duggan, general manager of the FIA, said: “It’s a difficult process trying to get all stakeholders to agree on anything, let alone a subject where everyone has already been developing their own pathways. However, the result would provide such a fundamental building block for fire risk assessors and assessments, it is worth the pain.”
 


     
RSS feeds Print content Share

Add Comment

Fire Admin
Comment from Simon Ince, Warrington Certification Ltd (WCL):

I have to disagree slightly with Martin on this; the technical competences of ‘what’ a fire risk assessor needs to know and ‘what’ they need to be able to do are commonly agreed within the fire risk profession. Therefore it should be very, very easy for the key stakeholders to agree that a competent fire risk assessor needs to know a,b,c,…… and be able to do …….x,y,z, when they arrive on site; to complete a fire risk assessment on behalf of the responsible person/duty holder

I think what Martin may be alluding to, is the difficulty agreeing ‘how’ competence should be assessed, and at what level the ‘bench mark’ should be set at. If the interests and the needs of the responsible person/duty holder, are to be central to the work of this group, then the ‘bench mark’ of ‘what’ a fire risk assessor needs to know and ‘what’ they need to be able to do, should be set at a level that excludes the cowboys; not at a level that allows a continuation of the present situation.

The sooner the ‘National Standard of Competence’ for fire risk assessors is available to certification bodies the better. By having a definitive standard compiled and supported by industry; accredited certification bodies will be able to provide schemes that all address the same ‘what’, and thus they will provide the responsible person with assurances about competence and quality that have previously been unavailable. Regardless of the type of scheme operated by the certification body, a Quality Company (BS 45011) scheme or a Competent Person (BS 17024) scheme; the competence identification elements will be standardised. With the added level of protection that UKAS auditing provides, all schemes will have to set the ‘bench mark’ at an equal level; a level that proves competence, as identified in a nationally recognised document.

WCL don’t believe that the ‘National Standard’ will identify anything that is not already covered by our assessment processes, however if the standard throws up anything we don’t cover; our FRACS schemes can easily be modified to incorporate any additional elements.

Posted on 22/04/10 10:26.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Showing 1 result.

Related Content