I've been asked to respond to this statement in respect of Lord Young's report. "fire safety.....is far away from his jurisdiction and specifically excluded from his remit." Statement has been made by someone touting for business and I am certain it is incorrect. I can see nothing in Lord Young's terms of reference that specifically prevented him from considering fire risk assessments. Is there any basis to the statement? PS: Query relates to low risk office environments.

Well said Ron Hunter

Top post. I couldn't have put it better myself!!

Lord Young's terms of reference, according to annex a of the report state: "To investigate and report back to the Prime Minister on the rise of the compensation culture over the last decade coupled with the current low standing that health and safety legislation now enjoys and to suggest solutions. Following the agreement of the report, to work with appropriate departments across government to bring the proposals into effect." Whether this includes fire safety depends on how you interpret this. "Health and safety legislation" could include fire safety legislation (certainly Lord Young has taken this to include food safety) and "compensation culture" could encompass fire safety too. However, it is clear that Lord Young gave little consideration to this. None of his recommendations referred to fire safety. The only agencies involved in enforcing legislation who are required to take action are the HSE and the Food Standards Agency. The recommendations in relation to health and safety legislation are all about legislation enforced by the HSE. In fact the only references to fire services is about firefighters not being "at risk of investigation or prosecution under health and safety legislation when engaged in the course of their duties if they have put themselves at risk as a result of committing a heroic act." Or, as succinctly said above:

I just read the terms of reference at annexe A to the report "To investigate and report back to the Prime Minister on the rise of the compensation culture over the last decade coupled with the current low standing that health and safety legislation now enjoys and to suggest solutions. Following the agreement of the report, to work with appropriate departments across government to bring the proposals into effect." Search/find function was not required for the grand total of 56 words, and I think that I can safely say that fire safety is NOT SPECIFICALLY excluded from LYs remit. Unless I am going totally tonto! Right then, anyone got 2 pencils and a pair of underpants?

Clive, indeed, there were a number of references to fire and the fire service etc, but Steve's query was not whether fire safety was INCLUDED but rather whether fire safety was specifically EXCLUDED; which it is NOT (as far as I can see)

Thanks for the subsequent replies - most helpful. To explain the background a little now that I've laid off the caffeine since post no 6. The firm I work for employs an external H&S consultancy. Apart from my role which is visiting construction sites, all other employees are based in office environments ranging from 2 persons to 200 persons around the UK. Our HR dept who oversee the management of internal H&S asked the consultancy to scale back the audit visits to the smaller offices employing 2-3 people on the basis that we would use self assessment for these sites. They are typically small offices within a rented multi-tenure building / office tower and pretty low risk. Our HR dept cited Lord Young's proposals and the HSE's new office 20 minute risk assessment tool. The consultant has pointed out that "self assessment is a definate no no" and that Lord Young had no business commenting on fire - as per the quoted line above. They then went on to suggest our insurances would be invalidated if we went down this route. Now I known Reg 7 of the management regs and I know insurers attitudes to risk assessments / audits. I was unsure about the fire aspect. To my mind though, the new HSE 20 minute tool for low risk office environments seems to be a direct response to Lord Young's report and it includes provision for fire safety aspects. Remember, we are talking a single room with 2 people here and I would suggest these would be ideal candidates for the tool. I could not see anything specifically excluding fire from LYs report. My response is to my HR department to advise them how to respond to the consultants claims.

Ron, indeed! I think you have hit the nail on the head, the consultant is simply trying to hold onto the work, which from Steve's description seems to be money for old rope. Steve, of course 'self assessment' is NOT a definite 'no no' at all, and it seems to be entirely reasonable in many circumstances to do so, as long as the people doing the assessment are competent. You don't have to be a super IOSH qualified practitioner to carry out the majority of simple risk assessments, especially in the lower risk environments (I know I am going to be taken to task for this Lord Young style comment). And of course, you don't have to justify your approach to the contractor/consultant. I think it is almost certainly a nonsense that your insurance (ELI?) would be invalidated. I suspect a consultant grasping at straws and trying to keep their heads above water. The alternative would be that they genuinely believe their advice to be correct and if so, I can't help but wonder if you should be using them!

What kind of reply is that? Are you suggesting the question should not have been asked or is it just your view of Lord Young? I'd love an explanation.