Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have responded so positively to the order. We much appreciate the welcome and we appreciate the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The important procedural point, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Carnegy of Lour, has tested the Regulatory Reform Act procedure. That is not surprising as it was often cited during the passage of the Regulatory Reform Act. This would be a major test for the capacity, flexibility and efficacy of the process. It is lengthy and the process of ensuring that the tests are met has been difficult and complex. Reading the reports and considering the way in which the RRO was amended in that process is evidence of that. The work that has gone into the order has involved exploring the limits, the tests and the interpretation of the Act. It has been a formative process and it is a pathfinder. Noble Lords on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted in their report that it was at the upper limit of what they considered acceptable. I entirely take the point made by the noble Baroness again today. Our experience is now being taken into account as part of the review of the Regulatory Reform Act, which is being undertaken by the Cabinet Office. We have a reflective process in place to establish where we are. It might have been possible to reduce the number of provisions by incorporating them into the Fire and Rescue Services Act. That was a possible option, but it would have resulted in a much larger Act. It was concluded that that would have been a burden of its own kind, but the draft order concerns fire safety whereas the Act mainly concerns the organisation and function of fire and rescue authorities. As we are doing two different things in this legislation, we thought that the regulatory reform process was appropriate. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on the Scottish point that we are confident that the majority of the provisions of the Act will commence in Scotland alongside our own legislation in England. Part 3 of the 2005 Act which was passed on 1 April by the Scottish Parliament deals with fire safety issues. Its principles are similar to the regulatory reform order and its objective is to ensure, as far as is practicable, a consistent fire regime across the UK. Obviously, the Scottish Parliament has to take into account different building regulations, legislation and so on. As I said, Part 3 is currently planned to commence in April 2006, which is a similar timescale to that to which we are working in England. On the point raised about necessary protection, which is linked to the regulatory reform order, our firm view is that the order not only maintains all necessary protections the existing law offers but that it goes further because puts prevention at the heart of fire safety. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness. In relation to the specific point the noble Baroness made about multiple occupancy, I have known situations in the voluntary sector where 10 or even 15   voluntary organisations share a building. That matter clearly has to be covered. The order deals with that. It makes each employer or other occupier responsible for their actions. So, for the safety of themselves and the others who use the building, there is an absolute duty on each employer for the protection of their staff. For others the duty applies to the extent that that person can exercise control over the situation. If there are areas beyond their control, the owner of the building has to take responsibility. The duty of responsibility is backed by other duties. Each responsible person is under an obligation to co-operate with other responsible persons in respect of fire precautions. That is a very clear obligation for organisations to work together in their written submissions—for example, when they carry out risk assessments. I imagine that they will have to make sure they know what each says and that they will have to advise other responsible persons of significant findings in the risk assessment, so they can take account of the hazards that arise. That is all backed by the power of enforcement. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness. I can always write to her and provide even more detail if she would like me to. I turn to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. I shall deal first with the question of what we mean when we say ““where necessary”” and how the guidance will elaborate on that. There are two elements to the assertions which have been made about the use of the term ““where necessary””. The first is that it contravenes the requirement of the European Directive 89/654. The second is, as the noble Baroness said, that it removes necessary protection. They are interlinked. The European point was made by the Fire Brigades Union in response to the minimum requirements laid down in Annexes 1 and 2—directives 4.1 to 4.7 on means of escape and directives 5.1 and 5.2 which concern fire-fighting equipment. The provisions suggested that those were absolute requirements and we disagreed with that. That is not the case. Indeed, we built in the caveat that the obligations laid down in the annex apply whenever required by the features of the workplace, the activity, the circumstances or hazard. We built in that caveat into the articles 13 and 14 the noble Baroness quoted by using the term ““where necessary””. The most important point is about necessary protection. Indeed, no such protection is removed because the whole burden of this legislation is to require the fire precautions to be present they are necessary to protect people. They must be there for necessary protection. I cannot give the noble Baroness at this stage any great detail about what the guidance will contain. I can reassure her on the point she raised about delay, that we are firmly of the opinion that our deadline of early January 2006 is very much within reach. It is tight but we aim to have the majority of the guidance published early in January 2006. We have agreed to work closely with the Health and Safety Executive, the DfES and the Department of Health, and others. I cannot anticipate what is in the guidance because it is in preparation, but as soon as we have drafts of them I shall be happy to ensure that the noble Baroness sees them. We will be consulting with the stakeholders, and the question has rightly been raised. The noble Baroness asked who were the business stakeholders with whom we have been working. The CBI has been the key partner throughout, but we have also worked with the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Hospitality Association, the British Retail Consortium and many more representatives. Again, I am very happy to supply her with a list of the people with whom we have been working if that will help. In terms of the guidance itself, I should say that because of the different sectors covered we are producing 11 comprehensive guides suited to each sector. This is not a situation where one size fits all. That is one reason why the guidance is taking time to produce. It has to be carefully done. It is a major undertaking. As I said, we are confident that we are on track to achieve it within the timescale we have set ourselves. I hope I have answered all the questions noble Lords have raised. If not, we shall certainly scrutinise Hansard tomorrow. As I have said, we are very happy to share progress with noble Lords as we go along. On question, Motion agreed to.