https://www.thefpa.co.uk/news/peeps-omitted-from-enactment-of-fire-safety-act-2021 

I'm currently reviewing PEEPs procedures for a client, first time since Aprils government U-turn on the advice given in the Grenfell Inquiry / Hackitt Report (Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety)

I thought there might be a conversation about this on here already but I didn't find it.

Originally, the government said they were going to implement ALL of the recommendations of the Grenfell Inquiry, but then this year they have stated that they will not be supporting mandatory PEEPs as recommended as it's not deemed proportionate.

What do we as Health and Safety Professionals, do when the government decide not to follow their own guidance? Do we stick with best practice? (for me it makes absolute sense that every site user/resident should have a clearly defined safe means of escape regardless of physical or mental ability, age or mobility (but then perhaps I'm just a silly hippy that thinks ALL lives should be protected...)) Or do we ONLY follow the current government stance?

I guess it will depend on the company/building on whether they want the bare minimum compliance or best practice. 

For what it's worth I will continue to promote and recommend PEEPs for everyone who needs one on every site I work on, as I did prior to Grenfell. It's just disappointing that the government has stated change and then wriggled out of it based on costs.

Would love opinions either way on this one.

Thanks

Hi Self and Hasty

Governments (and other organisations) make commitments and then either fail to follow them through or backtrack. Look at the commitments made at COP26 as a topical example!

So, we have one contender for the leadership of the Conservative promising a bonfire of regulations (despite this having been tried more than once before) in pursuance of something akin to Singapore just when the Ministry of Manpower in Singapore is looking at what further regulation is needed to stop the rise in accident rates.

Doesn't really matter if you are in an employer-employee relationship or a client-consultant one. 

From time to time there will be situations when you think that it is right to do A and the person you are advising either wants to do B, do nothing, or do A but not for X years.

At that point you have to recognise that they make the decisions and you have to decide on your ethical position. 

Anyone in a professional body has a Code of Conduct and if you are in IOSH the options are set out in Section 4.6 of the IOSH Code of Conduct (though personally I think that the suggestion that you should consider elevating the debate to the regulator is somewhat pie in the sky for most scenarios).

But, you can set out what YOU think is right and let the duty holder decide what route THEY want to take. Let THEM justify not doing A or putting A off for X years!

OK if they are your client, then you might have to walk away and not be paid for the next job, but if their morals don't align with yours, do you actually want to work for them?