The head of a fire brigade at the centre of an inquiry into the death of a woman who fell down a mine shaft believes that existing health and safety rules are preventing fire-fighters from saving lives.
Strathclyde Fire and Rescue chief officer Brian Sweeney said fire-fighters are more fearful of health and safety legislation and the prospect of being prosecuted than of the dangers they face when saving lives.
Mr Sweeney made his comments following the conclusion last month of a fatal-accident inquiry into the death of Alison Hume in 2008. The 44-year-old fell down a mine shaft in Galston, Ayrshire and was not rescued for several hours after fire-fighters from Strathclyde were told not to use the harness equipment they had available, as they were not trained in such an operation. Ms Hume suffered a fatal heart attack after mountain-rescue volunteers tried to lift her to the surface.
The inquiry’s findings are yet to be published, but on Tuesday (1 March), Mr Sweeney went on the offensive by suggesting that health and safety regulations were to blame for creating a “culture of fear” among fire-service staff. Speaking to the BBC, he said: “The introduction of legislation like the Corporate Homicide Act, and its application to senior officers and middle-ranking and junior officers, creates an environment where our ability to improvise is compromised – where there is a real fear, a culture of fear, about potential for prosecution and litigation.”
He called for amendments to the HSWA or the MHSWR to release fire-fighters from the fear of being prosecuted if something goes wrong when they carry out their duties in an emergency situation.
He added that life-saving decisions are generally made in the first two or three minutes of a fire crew’s arrival at the scene of the emergency. Said Sweeney: “It cannot be justifiable, therefore, that the decisions that are taken in those first two to three minutes, which, perhaps, are subsequently proven to be wrong, are then forensically analysed for the next two to three years by a whole raft of investigators and legal services.”
However, the Fire Brigades Union’s Scottish secretary, John Duffy, said, if anything, the safety regulations are too soft, adding: “If you are properly trained and equipped, there is no reason why health and safety legislation should prevent fire officers from doing their jobs.”
He said the real issue in the case of specialist rescues concerned training and the availability of the correct equipment. He pointed out that fire and rescue services must first identify the hazards to their communities using a process known as Integrated Risk Management Planning, and should then address the risk presented by such hazards by ensuring they have the necessary resources and capabilities to cope with potential related incidents.
He concluded: “Don’t blame health and safety for preventing you from doing your job. Health and safety doesn’t prevent you from doing anything. All it does is make you focus on how you do that job.”
In March last year, the HSE introduced a policy statement setting out how the Fire Service should comply with occupational health and safety duties in their operations, while underlining the Executive’s intention to take a proportionate approach to dealing with risk in the Service. The statement was endorsed by the Chief Fire Officers’ Association, the FBU, and the Government’s Office of the Chief Fire and Rescue Advisor.
An HSE spokesperson said: “HSE recognises that fire and rescue services have, by the very nature of their work, to send fire-fighters into dangerous situations in order to save lives, when anyone else would be seeking to get away from the danger, and HSE trains its inspectors to have an understanding of the work of the fire and rescue service.”
The spokesperson, however, warned: “Over the past few years there has been a number of major injuries to fire-fighters during operational incidents, some of which have resulted in multiple fatalities to firefighters, and it is only proper that lessons should be learnt from such incidents.”
Earlier this week, the Crown Prosecution Service announced that three fire-service managers are to face manslaughter charges in relation to the deaths of four fire-fighters in a warehouse blaze in 2007.
Fire Safety in 2023 eBook
SHP's sister site, IFSEC Insider has released its annual Fire Safety Report for 2023, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry.
Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
Does the professional ex-firefighter NOT think that training staff to use their equipment IS the job the Chief should get on with; you would not expect to arrive at a fire and not know how to use the hose, ladder or BA, so why is specialist rescue equipment different?
As an ex mines rescue volunteer and caver I am astounded at this Mr Sweeney. In fact I would suggest that had Mr Sweeney dedicated sufficient budgets for training fire and rescue staff on pristine new equipment then Ms Hume may still be alive today. In situations like this does he advocate improviation such as Fire fighters free climbing down the old shaft or using classic abseil techniques. It is a pity he was not cahllenged on this when he slated H&S on national TV. Very sad!
Most likely gas would be CO2, a suffocative gas denser than air. However, to use harnesses without training is a recipe for disaster.
Worryingly though, what else has Mr Sweeney decided sstaff should be not trained on…. it begs the question as to whether he is competent!
Have folk forgotten Carsington where untrained rescuers tried to rescue 1 and lost 5. If the service have equipment on tenders then staff should be trained in its use. (training is neither long nor expensive – I know I am AP for confined spaces) the fault is of managers for buying equipment, not training staff and then blaming the system.
Obviously the Chief of Strathclyde has not even the most basic understanding of why we have H&S Legislation – to protect our workers – he is not on the front line, he isn’t putting his life on the line by ‘ taking a chance’ at least not from his plush office at Strathclydes HQ!
This laissez faire attitude is disgraceful.
I read with concerns regarding the issue that the Fire Brigade could not do the rescue and that it was left to volunteers from the Mountain Rescue. Having served in the Mountain Rescue of Scotland for many years it reminded me of a comment by a certain Fire Service in Scotland who wanted to take over the provision of rescue services for the Mountains of Scotland. It makes me wonder where we would be if that had occurred !!
“Don’t blame health and safety for preventing you from doing your job. Health and safety doesn’t prevent you from doing anything. All it does is make you focus on how you do that job.”
What a fantastic quote!
I was wondering about the risk of gas poisoning – e.g. CO, Methane etc. Does anyone know if this was a factor in this case?
Not having the relevant experience you have, I would love to know what sort examples you have in mind – examples of excemptions that you feel should be in place and EU Directives that are problematic?
Having years of experience as a fireman and safety practitioner (police and fire service), I feel confident to add comment. A variety of emergency actions should have ‘special recognition’ or possibly exemption from Regulations. (Not necessarily the H&S at Work Act). The problem we have getting a sensible balance is the EU interference it would attract. The regulations emanate from badly written, bureaucratic EU directives, sadly out of UK control. UK have the expertise but not a veto.
I think mr Sweeney is trying to use H & S as an excuse. This time to get a get out or jail card for employers and managers. Why weren’t the firemen trained in the use of equipment they had, that in itself is negligence on the part or the fire service. I can understand the dilema of a fireman wanting to save a life and take a chance with his own but why should they. if there are no consequences then managers could order a fireman to take an unacceptable risk without fear of prosecution.
It may have escaped the notice of some, however the three fire oficers recently charged for the fatlities of four firemen at a warehouse, have been charged with gross neglignt manslaughter – and not health and safety offences. So, any special exemption for HSWA or MHSWR would not apply in this particular case. Food for thought?
With many years as a fire officer under my belt, can someone explain why a fire fighters safety is less important. Or is there a ratio…say two firefighter deaths for one saved civillian. No…doesn’t look right to me. Alternatively train them and provide the equipment and expertise…most seem to have done that.
As a former operational professional firefighter, I agree with the Chief. The nanny state , being constantly endorsed by IOSH and there lack of understanding of high risk industries. Leave IOSH to play games with their silly little projects and ego tripping CMIOSH (for what it is worth ) and allow the professionals to do their job!
It’s important to strike a balance between managing risks and allowing for innovation in the fire safety industry. While we should always prioritize safety, we also need to encourage new technologies and techniques that can enhance fire prevention and response. At the same time, it’s crucial to ensure that everyone involved in fire safety, including the accountable persons and the fire service, are properly trained and have the necessary knowledge to effectively manage risks. We need to work together to ensure that our buildings and communities are as safe as possible, while also embracing new ideas and approaches.