Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which she has presented this order to the House, which I hope is an augury of things to come. She was very clear and straightforward. I welcome that, as I do the order itself. It is not often that we see consolidation of legislation coming forward in quite this way. However, on reading through the schedules one can see the volume of legislation dating from the early 1970s under which businesses have had to labour. It is only proper that it should be consolidated into a system whereby it can all be found in one place. We welcome that and acknowledge all the work that has been done. None would disagree that fire safety, particularly in premises in which there are large numbers of people, is one of the most important considerations. One must be able to go into premises with the confidence that one can get out if there is a fire and that proper precautions are in place. So, again, I welcome the order and the way in which it has been brought forward. I also welcome the enormous amount of work on the part of both the Regulatory Reform Committee of the other place and our own Lords reform committee. On reading all the points raised by the committees, they have probably dealt a blow to any Opposition Front-Bencher who tries to outshoot them. They have done a significant job and we are grateful to them. One question raised by both the regulatory reform committees relates to the words ““where necessary””. They appear quite often in the order, but most specifically in Articles 13 and 14. I note that it is proposed to explain the term ““where necessary”” in the guidance. I shall touch on this briefly because Articles 13 and 14 leave the door open by leaving in place the question of whether you can get around fire precautions by saying that they are not necessary. That is worrying. Article 13 states:"““Where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances)””." Surely the words ““where necessary”” are not needed because this is an absolute requirement. Can the Minister touch on what the guidance is likely to say about the term in Articles 13 and 14, because it also appears quite frequently in other articles, although with a slightly different connotation because in those it is made clear that there is an opportunity for the door to be left open on whether or not things are done? I should also like to ask the Minister when the suite of guidance brochures or leaflets is likely to be ready. There is a suggestion that the order might be delayed beyond its implementation date of April 2006 if the guidance is not ready. The Minister said that the consultants have already started work and that consultation on the guidance is taking place with stakeholders. However, since we are now in June, how long is putting the guidance together anticipated to take? Why might it be necessary to delay publication beyond April 2006? I appreciate that if the guidance is not ready, it would be silly to introduce the   order, but nine months should be long enough for the work to be carried out. Can the Minister say a little more about who were the stakeholders in this exercise? The consultation was undertaken under the provisions of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and is set out in paragraph 22 of the statement from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but it does not seem to include any representatives from business. The noble Baroness has said that business interests were involved, and I wonder who was involved in the consultation that took place under the independent chairmanship of Pamela Castle and where the business representation came from. Lastly, who were the stakeholders? I should be grateful for any insights in response to the questions I have put to the Minister. However, having said that, this legislation is well worth having and again I thank her for bringing it forward so clearly.