An evaluation of the role of fire extinguishers

167. A health parallel to extinguishers is the deployment of automatic external defibrillators in public
spaces. Recognising that the first few minutes of a cardiac arrest are critical to the outcome, the
UK and other countries have recently seen a strategy of placing these portable devices in locations
where they can be immediately accessed by the public (untrained users). User-centred design
ensures that they are simple to operate with remote assistance provided via the 999 call. Concerns
about vandalism were also cited but instead of halting a life-saving programme, they have
continued to ensure the equipment is available. It is accepted that, even if occasionally one is not
available, the majority will be, and these make an invaluable contribution.
Training
168. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 sec 21 states that the responsible person must
make sure that employees are given training to ‘include suitable and sufficient instruction and
training on the appropriate precautions and actions to be taken by the employee in order to
safeguard himself and other relevant persons on the premises.’
169. It does not specifically identify training as a necessity in relation to the use of portable fire
extinguishers. In the absence of a legal duty, the issue of whether training is required then
becomes a discretionary one. It is in some of the codes of practice and similar documents that the
idea of training as essential is created.
170. For example, following revision, PAS 79 was recently published as two codes of practice, part 1
being for ‘Premises other than Housing’ and part 2 for ‘Housing’. The documents both positively
recognise the role of the extinguisher. However, in part 2 (which applies to housing), it advises
against the provision of extinguishers where untrained users may access them. The justification
given is that doing these users may pose a risk to themselves or others when tackling a fire. In part
1, the opposite applies and the risk to the user or others is not accepted as a justifiable reason for
not providing extinguishers. On a human level the difference in advice is both confusing and
counter intuitive. People will take more risk to protect their homes than they would a place of
work and yet this guidance advises the opposite and does not accord with established human
traits.
171. Any risk assessor who considers ignoring the advice, in either case, is strongly cautioned against
doing so and is expected to provide a justification for their decision. Conversely, compliance with
the code of practice requires no justification. Given their influential role, it is crucial then that this
and other guidance is fully and transparently evidenced. Where advice reflects professional
opinion and is not corroborated by evidence then this must be explicitly stated.
172. The bibliography for parts 1 or 2 did not suggest any evidence source which may inform the strong
direction given. They are both limited to listing technical documents and do not include any
surveys or social science studies. As such, the underpinning evidence for such important advice
remains unclear.
173. It is also important to understand how the content and forceful tone of the advice is
understood by risk assessors and other users of the guidance, on a human level. The
important influence of human factors is becoming much widely appreciated, having
developed from the aviation sector. In this regard, suitable consideration must be
given to the intended, and potential unintended, consequences of any directives.
32
0