Saving our schools: need for a national strategy: Saving Our Schools, a House of Commons...

There are four aspects of fire protection in schools which need to be addressed, Adrian Clark, Chair, Fire Safety Development Group, suggested to delegates at the sprinkler seminar on June 30. These are: Building Regulations, which need to he more robust on what they require, especially on compartmentalisation

in schools; The right construction materials are required, limiting fire load; Sprinklers have an essential part to play stopping fires in the building; and, effective structural fire protection is required to keep fire started outside the building, outside the building, and to stop fire spread within the building.

First, CFO Peter Holland, Chair; National Fire Sprinkler Network, identified the problem: 70 per cent of school fires are started deliberately costing 96 million [pounds sterling] this year already "In my fire service area we've had three arson attacks on schools in the past week alone," he reported, adding that the cost of replacement to one village primary school Maze in 2001 was 2 million [pounds sterling]. "Government should be concerned that money committed to school building--10 billion [pounds sterling] since 1997--is being diverted into rebuilding premises that have been subjected to arson attacks."

CFO Holland said that a robust case should be made to policy makers explaining how such losses occur and that they are not inevitable. "It is important to raise these issues as Government prepares to invest a further 3 billion [pounds sterling]," plus the impending publication of the DfES consultation document, Building Schools for the Future, and review of Building Regulations during 2004.

Some solutions were proffered by Larry Stokes. Zurich Municipal, who suggested using construction materials with low combustibility, securing bin areas, retrofitting void barriers in older schools to prevent rapid fire spread (a recurrent theme), securing perimeters, introducing automatic fire alarms and of course, ill stalling sprinklers, plus curriculum tools to deflect firesetters. "We have to design schools today," he advised, "on the assumption that they will have at least one major fire in their lifetime. For some schools this may equate to a significant fire every year."

Resilience was also a key issue throughout the day. He said that schools today are not resilient enough and the new capital programme represents a major opportunity to "ensure we get sustainable buildings, to ensure the stock is going to be there in 25, 50 years time."

This was echoed by David Miliband ME Minister for School Standards, Department for Education and Skills, who said he wanted the department thinking about how to get schools built better than the 1950s schools "How will the buildings be fit for learning, not just for a decade but for a century. Sustainability is about the environment agenda, how you minimise cost and use energy efficiently. But sustainability also concerns issues about fire and security." The Building Schools for the Future programme will have about 2 billion [pounds sterling] a year behind it, and he claimed, "there is a determination for the designers to take fire and arson seriously."

Unfortunately Mr Miliband was not present to hear Jonathon O'Neils presentation on Solutions: A Coherent Policy. Mr O'Neil, Managing Director, Fire Protection Association, ex pressed dismay at questions in the House on information on school fires. Apparently the Department for Education does not contain statistics, nor is it aware that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does, a problem Mr O'Neil identified as one of ownership. Not only does the ODPM publish statistics, it also has targets for reduction in the instances of arson fires, including those in schools. "Why is it then," he asked, "that the Department for Education will go no further than recommending statutory minimum levels of fire safety for schools when these have clearly proved so in adequate at saving our building stock?"

He calculated that approximately 500 million [pounds sterling] has been lost due to fire in insured school stock over the last six years. "Imagine a public limited company having to explain to its share holders that sort of asses loss in the same period."

Decent fire safety management, fire services working in concert with education authorities, plus sensible building management, allowing vital time for evacuation and for the fire service to have a better chance of containment, could greatly reduce the risk, he suggested.

Mr O'Neil acknowledged that the fire policy unit and Building Regulations recognise the problem, and called for the Department of Education to do the same, "to listen to the professional advice of the fire industry and sort this problem out before it is too late and we start to lose lives in school tires." He recommended a partnership approach bringing in all relevant stakeholder groups and Government departments, which, he suggested, would solve the problem "in a very short timescale indeed. From what I can determine, the tire safety professionals in the UK are of one mind, it is now up to the Department of Education to recognise that they have a problem and show leadership to reverse this worrying trend."

While there was some disagreement about apportioning blame, it is clearly inadequate that one department is oblivious to the workings of another; in terms of school arson fires it is long overdue that the Government practices what it preaches and exercises joined-up Government.

Work had been done though on guidance on fire safety and managing school facilities, Mukund Patel informed delegates. Mr Mukund, Head of School Buildings and Design Unit, Department for Education and skills, said: "The DfES has taken a number of initiatives here, we have participated in seminars with the Fire Safety Development Group across the country. We have produced guidance notes on fire safety for head teachers and governors, and DfES Guide no. 6 on Fire Safety, part of a series on managing school facilities." He also listed the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999, on safe evacuation of school buildings, and forthcoming revisions to Building Bulletin 7, on means of escape, fire resistance, fire detection systems and active protection systems.

He stated that it was up to LEAs to decide what means of protection they needed, that DfES attitude on sprinklers has been that it is up to the authorities following a proper risk analysis "to decide what is the best solution for each particular school, rather than a LEA put ting sprinklers into all schools." It would cost around 3 billion [pounds sterling] to put sprinklers in schools nationwide, he said. Mr Mukund also recommended other fire protection measures such as fire breaks and improving general security in schools.

Improving security was disputed by several speakers and delegates who contested that a reverse trend showed that when access to schools was made difficult after normal hours, firesetters were doing it during the day.

While capital expenditure on schools is increasing sharply, currently at about 3 billion [pounds sterling] per year; "set to rise to 5 billion [pounds sterling] in 2005/ 2006," Mr Mukund informed delegates that Buildings Schools for the Future wishes to transform all secondary schools within 10-15 years. "New schools that we build will have community facilities in them and the building will have a sense of ownership by the wider community," he suggested. If this is the case, wider appreciation is needed on the threat of school fires, so communities can make their own decision.

Given the White papers advocacy of the risk based approach to fire protection, Mr Mukund is perfectly right in judging each school on its own merit, but it is awareness that is crucial here. He said: "Putting sprinklers into schools is not going to stop arsonists actually lighting the, fire, it is going to reduce damage, You are better off addressing the issue--why people burn schools in the first place. We have to tackle the rear issues rather than go for a quick fix." True, but every community has the right to be protected adequately, sprinklers most definitely provide that, and once appreciation of that is more widely known the demand may soon change that outlook.

CFO Alan Doig and ACO John Judd underlined the scale of the problem from a Fire Service perspective. CFO Doig informed delegates that between 1995 and 2000 Staffordshire had incurred on average about 0.25 million [pounds sterling] loss in schools, which jumped to 2.75 [pounds sterling] million in 2001, with uninsured loss last year at 13 million [pounds sterling]. "A fire in a Staffordshire school last year has caused just over 7 million [pounds sterling] in insurance losses and will cost over 8 million [pounds sterling] in rebuilding costs," he reported "It will open again in about two years time."

ACO Judd identified a similar problem in his county, experiencing 459 fires in the last year. "Almost one in five schools have had a fire in the last three years," he said, although Greater Manchester has more schools with sprinklers than any other brigade area. The difference is huge, he said.

In a school without sprinklers, the fire was not discovered for up to 30 minutes and by the time the brigade was called, the blaze was out of control. The school was subsequently demolished. The school with sprinklers suffered only minor damage to one square metre of a classroom, the fire service was called within fire minutes and one sprinkler head had quelled the fire leaving firefighters with no significant firefighting to do. "The school is still thriving," ACO Judd reported.

LEAs often cite cost as the argument against sprinklers, he said, suggesting increased security is more cost effective. As stated earlier, that just leads to an increase in arson attacks during the day. "I wonder if the issue of protecting our schools from fire should be a decision of local budget holders, who understandably deal with the day-to day issues."

There was a feeling throughout the day that many speakers had been here too many times before and now was the time to do something about seriously reducing the threat of arson to our schools.

Glyn Evans, FBU, Secretary, National Fire Sprinkler Network, set out the need for a strategic national approach He identified all the tools on offer: Arson Control Forum, APB, ACPO, CACFOA ... all recommending remedies. Particularly, he stressed, financial pressures from the insurance industry. "But is it right that if as a society we detect a serious safety problem we should rely on commercial pressures to resolve it?"

"But we have to ask where the overall co-ordination on this issue is coming from. Where is tire concerted national strategy and effort to deal with this issue?"

The Building Regulations are inadequate, he suggested, setting a compartment level of 800 sq m. "We need to address this." And the fact that there is no "legal legitimacy" anywhere, the decision being left to the LEA on whether to fit sprinklers or not.

"We have lots of options but little national guidance," he remarked. "We don't have much in the way of guidance to LEAs, especially those specifying PFI schemes.

"We don't have one common body where we can all meet and talk about this situation. DIES controls schools. Fire is the responsibility of the ODPM. There needs to be an interface," he urged, repeating Mr O'Neil's call for co-ordination and partnership working.

Mr Evans pointed to the Fire Safety Advisory Board as a key catalyst (although its future is uncertain, according to the White Paper). "The school fires debate must be taken there for top level consideration. The FSAB can then provide guidance to LEAs through the DfES."

There is an opportunity to tackle this issue--many ministers were present and listening, but much depends on the structure of the FSAB, its place in the Business and Community Safety Forum outlined in Our Fire and Rescue Service. It is another issue to be tackled in the White Paper consultation process; another example of the need for further discussion and the delicate balance presented by the white Paper's proposals. Get it right and there may be big wins, long-term. Discard/overlook the FSAB and you might as well as ask for fire stats and guidance from the Treasury.