http://www.telegraph.co....-more-than-a-decade.html 78% of firefighters in FBU vote for a series of NATIONAL fire strike If you are responsible for fire safety or business continuity, it might be wise to review contingency arrangements now. This is particularly important if you have a high risk premises – i.e if you provide care vulnerable occupants (and vital if you rely on progressive horizontal evacuation), provide sleeping accommodation, have tall buildings or those with deep sub basement levels or have any highly flammable stock. Each fire service in the UK has had to draw up it's own contingency plans for covering strikes since 2004. Some, such as London, have a plan and have used it before and refined it. Others have never enacted their plans and some have no contingency arrangements whatsoever and are now in a panic. (Why they have no plans after 9 years of this statutory requirement was introduced is something perhaps the public and business community may wish to ask through the Courts at a later date)

MSSY; what exactly do you mean by the line 'wise to review contingency arrangements now'* noting that as training people to fight fires takes many years to do [*Which is a very good comment in itself]

The ex fire fighter says:"not to rely on the fire service for fire fighting and rescue." So the proposed strikes will not have any effect.

So are you saying it is down to the RP to rescue their people and fight the fire?

Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 covers the provision of a Fire & Rescue Service Core functions of Fire & Rescue Authority 7 Fire-fighting (1) A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of— (a) extinguishing fires in its area, and (b) protecting life and property in the event of fires in its area. To be picky the legislation you mention is Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 rrfso It this order it states the appointed person is responsible for evacuating a premises not to carry out rescues

As far as I can see the Fire and Rescue Services Act only mentions rescue with regard to Road traffic accidents Section 8 states: A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of rescuing people in the event of road traffic accidents in its area; Why would the Act say this for road traffic accidents but not for fires if it was their duty to affect rescues from fire situations?

Of course it could MEden380, but why not state the specific requirement if indeed it is a requirement. They could have written something similar in the RTA section but they chose to be specific? I know my local fire service advise people that they are not responsible for rescues from fire, that is a true fact.

Oh come on! Unless you can demonstrate otherwise I don't think that the FSRRO says that we shouldn't rely on the FRS to fight fires or rescue people. FRS exist. I dial 999, ask for the fire service and they (almost) invariably turn up (unless they are on strike!). I believe that they perform a statutory function to fight fires and rescue people. When the holes deep enough, it's time to stop digging!

Worth noting that HSE have written to all COMAH sites to advise them to consider the implications of reduced emergency response cover and implement interim contingency measures to prevent/limit the consequences of major accidents for the duration of any strike.

or getting windows cleaned, or possibly gutters cleared out ...

Come on now you naughty people, give Firesafety101 a break as he absolutely is right. There has been a huge shift in responsibilities since the FSO has been introduced. The business (The RP) had a particularly passive role before, as the fire service would compile the fire certificate and regularly visit to make sure it was being complied with. Now devising & maintaining the fire safety strategy is all down to the RP. Its also correct that in the main (but not always, as progressive horizontal evacuation does rely on fire service assistance to some extent), the fire service will expect the RP's fire strategy to be able to evacuate everyone fro the premises without fire service intervention, especially as Firesafety 101 has stated with the evacuation of mobility impaired people . This is because all the UK fire safety legislation relates to and is limited to life safety. So not having a fire service around should not primarily effect life safety. However, there is a heightened risk of staff getting themselves into problems by (for example) using firefighting equipment perhaps when they should have given up, and of course the strikes will lead to a huge business continuity risk. We have developed a procedure in recent years to deal with fire strikes. For example the plan curtails all (programmed) hot works, but allows hot works for repairs where it is vital to keep the business running. The same with IT testing, electrical works, the temporary removal of fire compartments (ie running of cables through fire barriers & fire door removal/maintenance). Plus the maintenance of our AFD systems is not carried out on on just before strike dates (God forbid we break something and have a reduced coverage on the day!). We even resort to switching off our industrial deep fat fryers in the kitchens during strike periods (boiled or mash only I am afraid!). In addition, managers are advised to hold meetings with staff to refresh themselves of the emergency plans and encourage staff to test their domestic smoke detectors at home. Cleaners wil get one hours overtime here a strike period is during night hours to ensure they close all doors (whether fire doors or not) are closed when they leave each office at night. Its all common sense stuff. The risk level posed by this industrial action will vary depending on the activities carried out and the size and features of your premises. So I am saying, its wise for all business to review what they do contingency planning wise & to consider whether additional control measures during strike periods would be beneficial. Lets hope that the Govt & FBU can sit around the table and avoid this nonsense. Sadly I am not optimistic, but hope I am proved wrong

I would suggest this is because it sets to define who should do the rescuing for RTAs, who has the duty to provide cutting gear etc. As we all know the F&RS will rescue people at home, in the office and the factory if necessary to protect life in the event of a fire.

LOL they don't all drive taxis on their day off. some of them do building work.

Mssy I am with you on this one plenty of sarcasm Those that LOL don't have to attend and clear up the mess left after a fire, RTC or even a suicide.

Mssy, I shall steer clear of the 'politics'. Your initial post was a timely ‘heads up’, that we might all do well to heed and spend a little time to give a further consideration to. I don’t think that anybody is either disputing, nor would argue that employers now have a far more proactive role now rather than the essentially passive role under FPA. I must admit to being slightly less convinced than you that not having a fire service “..should not primarily effect life safety..”, although I am as always happy to be wrong. Your various suggestions about reducing the fire risk such as suspending ‘non-essential’ hot works etc seem entirely sensible. I also fully accept that the fire service expects that employers have arrangements for evacuating their premises (I haven’t suggested otherwise) but there will inevitably be occasions when this hasn’t happened for one reason or another. It would be difficult to argue against that one, especially as one of the questions that the fire service invariably asks me when they attend our premises, is have we got everybody out or not accounted for? However, you go on to say that “..Firesafety101 .. absolutely is right..”. What, absolutely right in his assertion that the “..fsrro REQUIRES (caps used for emphasis) the person responsible for the premises ….. not to rely on the fire service for fire fighting and rescue.”? I don’t know about others, but frankly I find the assertion a revelation. Try as I might I can’t find any mention of this, and having asked where I might find this within the RRFSO, I am then asked to find where within the RRFSO it says that they will!! You couldn’t make it up! If it is indeed the case, then surely the FRS must be the most inappropriately named organisation in the UK (I am open to offers though!) So, while I challenge the assertion made at #2, this doesn’t mean that I don’t understand my responsibilities, I think I do, or that I need to revisit them, I don’t think I do; I just don’t think that one of my ‘responsibilities’ under the RRFSO is not rely on the fire service!

to clarigy - the situation is not funny, nor is clearing up fires and associated destruction; but Ian's comment was amusing. I bow to the self righteous on this.

Hi Mssy, on a more serious note, I have no objection whatsoever to firefighters taking on extra work, not do I object to the other professions you mention doing so - they are all entitled to do what they wish. Yes, it would be nice to see them all paid properly but unfortunately that is not the case. As for the LOL; well a joke is a joke and nothing more. I have friends (suprising but true) who are teachers and nurses so I appreciate the serious side too. I don't believe any serious offence was intended by either me or Ian.