You said, we did
We are grateful for all the feedback we received through the consultation on the Emergency Preparedness and Resilience Fire Standard, all of which has been considered. We have provided an explanation and rationale for the changes made to the final version of the Fire Standard in the table below.
|You said||We did|
|The terminology used to describe emergencies varied greatly throughout the fire standard, for example the terms disruptive event, emergency and incident were all used.||The term “emergency” was amended to be the common term throughout.
Further clarification on this term been provided within the glossary.
|Learning is not always captured at the point of an emergency; it could also be gathered at training and other type of exercises.||The Fire Standard was revised to clarify that learning could be gathered from multiple sources.|
|The standard could be interpreted in a way that fire and rescue services must have suitable and sufficient resources and assets themselves to manage an emergency.||The fire standard was revised to clarify this and reflect that arrangements should be in place to access available resources and assets. This could be done through whatever arrangements the service may have in place to support local and national emergencies.|
To achieve the Fire Standard
|You said||We did|
|Government Protective Marking Scheme was no longer applicable and had been replaced with newer security classifications.||Government Security Classifications replaced the previous terminology.|
|Not all services have access to secure online systems for the purposes of sharing information and plans.||The word online was removed to ensure all services could comply with this requirement.|
|Services have a number of multi-agency plans that should be taken into consideration and aligned to, not just LRF contingency plans.||The wording within the fire standard was revised, with multi-agency plans replacing the term LRF contingency plans.|