How do you solve a problem like complacency?

hin g

lis

nP ub

F

IRE Editor Andrew Lynch was forthright and unapologetic in his opening remarks at the recent Congress, Out of the flames: A fire safe future after the tragedy of Grenfell Tower. He certainly did set the tone for the day; one where key players from different parts of the fire sector gathered to reflect on the events of June 14 and consider what should happen next.

Many of the speakers at the Congress contributed articles to the July/August edition of FIRE. They wrote at length about their response to the fire and had some ideas about what actions should be taken. Bringing these contributors together with others in the sector provided a broad ranging platform for discussion and debate five months after the fire.

“We are complicit in this failure,” said Lynch. “We have the collective knowledge, but we don’t have the solution.”

But what is the problem that needs solving?

Fire safety is complex: it is made up of the interrelationship between many factors, systemic, behavioural and technical. Matt Wrack, General Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, cautioned: “It’s a recipe for complacency if each part of the fire sector thinks somewhere else went wrong.” It is a clarion call for the fire sector to unite together to consider the problem and move forward together with a strategy for solving it and improving fire safety for all.

Pa

CONGRESS

“I think we are all part of this systemic failure. We as a lobby failed to get the message across. We need to set a new tone. We are going to get this right. All the expertise is in this room.”

vil io

Grenfell

an dM ed

ia

How do you solve a problem like complacency?

Lt d

FIRE Correspondent Catherine Levin reports on the Congress, Out of the flames: A fire safe future after the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, where speakers and delegates determined that a joined up, collective approach is required to demonstrate to the government that the fire sector has a voice that needs to be heard

10 | January 2018 | www.fire–magazine.com

Ever since that terrible day when 71 people lost their lives in the fire at Grenfell Tower, those in the fire sector have reflected on what they could have done to prevent it and how to ensure it does not happen again. The facts about the Grenfell fire are critical for providing the evidence base to define the problem that needs solving.

Inquiries The government set up an independent public inquiry into the fire. It also put in place an independent review of building regulations and fire safety led by Dame Judith Hackitt. These were predictable responses that created a public space to manage the task to work out what went wrong and what changes need to be made as a result.

But for those who have no locus in Sir Martin Moore Bick’s inquiry, the only option is to watch from a distance as the inquiry team diligently goes about its work. That inquiry will take years and in the meantime people continue to live in tower blocks scattered across the UK, ever watchful, ever fearful that the same could happen to them.

The fire sector is using some of this time to reflect, with a lexicon derived mostly from words beginning with ‘c’: complexity, competency, complacency and complicit.

It is cathartic (another ‘c’) to do this, but it needs to morph

an dM ed

ia

Lt d

Grenfell Congress

lis

hin g

into a practical and pragmatic discussion that defines the problem and provides strategies for dealing with it.

Much of the discussion about the Grenfell fire relates to the building. The legislation underpinning the fire safety regime as it relates to buildings is a good place to start to define the problem.

vil io

nP ub

Legislative Fragmentation For Iain Cox, latterly CFO for Royal Berkshire and more recently Chair of the Business Sprinkler Alliance, a key buildings-related issue is legislative fragmentation.

He spoke about the Building Regulations and the series of approved documents that accompany it. He argued that later parts of the approved documents get the most attention and may conflict with the earlier parts and, in particular, fire safety (known as AD B).

Iain also raised the subject of competency of fire risk assessors. The government has shied away from setting up a third party competency scheme for fire risk assessors and has let the fire sector sort this one out. To some extent it has been successful, but it has not been enough to prevent unqualified, inexperienced people claiming to be able to provide fire risk assessments for the responsible person.

That risk continues today.

Generally, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 did not come in for a lot of criticism at this Congress.

A few weeks before the Congress, RIBA submitted its

Pa

Photo: Catherine Levin

evidence and recommendations to the Hackitt Review and recommended the repeal of the Fire Safety Order. No one at the Congress admitted to sharing this view. Indeed Dave Sibert, the Health and Safety Adviser for the FBU, said: “It’s nothing to do with the Fire Safety Order, it’s the enforcement that is lacking.”

CFO Mark Hardingham, National Fire Chiefs Council lead for fire protection and building safety, talked about “the dark art of fire safety”. Under the Fire Safety Order, the Fire and Rescue Service has enforcement duties and inspecting officers carry out this work. “There has been a weakening of our roles as inspectors,” complained Nick

“For now, the best the fire sector can do is to come together and be a lobby with a single voice” www.fire–magazine.com | January 2018 | 11

Lt d

at the Congress focused on the environmental and physiological impact of the fire retardant chemicals used in furniture and furnishings in the home.

Terry Edge, former civil servant and expert in fire safety and furnishings, spoke about the impact of flame-retardant chemicals on the toxicity of smoke. Using a droll Yes Minister approach to setting out what is a complex subject, Terry captivated the audience with his reinterpretation of Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey and how they might discuss this subject today.

He told the Congress that changes to the tests for fire safety of furniture and furnishings set out in a 2014 government consultation have not been implemented.

He is sceptical about why the government has not gone ahead with the changes. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills notes on its website: ‘Instead, the proposals on changes to the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) Regulations testing regime will be considered as part of the full review of the regulations which was already underway’.

Terry set a challenge to the Congress audience to read the 2014 consultation and see if they, like Terry, are convinced that the proposed changes to the testing regime are right. He urged delegates to write to their own MP or write to him if they did not agree.

It would be easy to go down a rabbit hole of technical discussion about legislation and never come back out.

Changes to legislation may be the right answer to some of the problems about buildings that emerge out of the charred remains of Grenfell Tower, but they are not a panacea.

Furniture and Furnishings Testing Another aspect of fire safety, which is brought into sharp relief by the number of homes destroyed by the Grenfell fire, is the testing regime associated with the 1988 fire safety regulations for domestic furniture. One of the speakers

National Fire Safety Agency Proposal Moving away from problems with existing legislation and potential changes that may emerge as a solution, Brian Robinson, Chair of the Fire Sector Federation, had a different idea. He has already proposed the creation

an dM ed

ia

Coombes from London Fire Brigade. He was backed up by his LFB colleague, ACO Dan Daly, who described inspecting officers as “sacrificial timber” when it came to cutting posts in fire and rescue services.

It is the relationship between the Building Regulations, the Fire Safety Order and the competence of fire risk assessors that presents the Hackitt Review team with some challenges. Does the system work as it stands and does it blend well with the legislative regime framed around the Housing Act and its own fire safety provisions, including the Housing Health and Safety Rating System?

The debate about the interplay between the Fire Safety Order and the Housing Act and the confusion it creates is not new. Perhaps the spotlight of Hackitt will lead to some sensible changes to the existing legislative arrangements, or at least some simplification about the relationship between the two.

“It takes people dying in large numbers for things to change,” said Matt Wrack. The day after the Congress it was the 30th anniversary of the Kings Cross fire, when 31 people died. After that tragic event, major changes were put in place to improve safety on sub-surface railways – no more smoking on the tube and no more wooden escalators.

With Brexit sucking the oxygen out of parliament, it is unlikely there will be any political appetite for new or amended legislation unless there is compelling evidence to suggest it would make a significant difference to fire safety. If the outcome of the Hackitt Review includes recommendations for legislative change, then Grenfell and Kings Cross will forever be spoken about in the same breath. There is a reason it is called tombstone legislation.

Pa

vil io

nP ub

lis

hin g

Panelists CFO Mark Hardingham, CFO Stuart Edgar, London Fire Brigade’s Nick Coombes, the British Sprinkler Association’s Iain Cox, CFO Paul Fuller and Fire Sector Federation President Brian Robinson

“It is clear that a joined up, collective approach is required to demonstrate to the government that the fire sector is not fragmented and has a voice that needs to be heard to create the solutions together” 12 | January 2018 | www.fire–magazine.com