Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.



Go to last post Go to first unread
Self and Hasty  
#1 Posted : 27 July 2022 16:17:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Self and Hasty


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.


#2 Posted : 27 July 2022 18:01:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user

The justification given for not implementing the recommendation for PEEPs in residential buildings is that it is not practical to do it.

If it is practical for you to do it in your particular situation, then that justification does not apply to you.  

If you haven't got a justification not to do it, it's hard to see how you could morally not do it.

thanks 1 user thanked Kate for this useful post.
Self and Hasty on 08/08/2022(UTC)
peter gotch  
#3 Posted : 28 July 2022 15:59:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

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?

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Self and Hasty on 08/08/2022(UTC)
#4 Posted : 28 July 2022 16:53:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user

I think the Govt are right to row back on the unworkable idea of insisting on PEEPS in residential buildings In a commercial building there is an employer with control, there are staff who can be managed , trained and allocated tasks. This is not possible in a block of flats It might not seem politically correct (to not have a plan to evacuate the disabled) but PEEPS just will not work in these settings
thanks 1 user thanked Messy for this useful post.
PDarlow on 29/07/2022(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.