Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16-19)
15 JUNE 2004
DCFO ANDY MARLES
AND SDO NIGEL
CHARLSTON
Q16 Chairman: Good morning, Mr Marles
and Mr Charlston. We have your submission. I will not repeat all
the comments I made a few moments ago but exactly the same criteria
apply to you. Are there any opening comments you would like to
make at the start before I ask you a couple of questions?
Mr Marles: If I could, Chairman.
I have prepared a very short, two-minute introduction to give
members a feel for where the organisation I represent is coming
from. Chairman and members of the Committee, the Chief Fire Officers'
Association (CFOA) is grateful for the opportunity to address
you and offer observations on the proposed Regulatory Reform (Fire
Safety) Order. Our sole intent is to make the legislation workable,
both for enforcing bodies and for responsible persons, with the
ultimate aim of making and keeping the built environment as safe
as is reasonably practicable. The proposals are generally welcomed
by CFOA as they apply to most of the built environment, offer
protection to persons in and around buildings, and assist with
property and environmental protection as well as the all-important
safety of firefighters. We do however have several concerns which
I have submitted to the Committee on behalf of CFOA. These range
from some quite fundamental issues that we see in the proposals,
to others which if included give clarity and will reduce the reliance
on the judiciary in determining appeals and offences. Our submission
makes direct comment where we see the issue is clear and also
raises questions where the Government could give better guidance
and clarity to the benefit of business, the general public and
the fire service alike. We see as fundamental amendments to article
2, regarding the definition of "relevant persons" and
believe that such a change from the consultation document published
in July 2002, which quoted all occupants of premises not just
employees, should have attracted further consultation at least
with stakeholders such as CFOA and the firefighters' representative
bodies. In our submission we raise further comments surrounding
the proposals in articles 9, 13, 14, 17, 29 and 36 and some general
observations in connection with plans, implementation and guidance
documents. CFOA is keen to assist the ODPM to ensure this legislation
is effective and able to be enforced with clarity. Since submitting
our document, further issues have come to light around article
22, which deals with cooperation, and article 29, alterations
notices and the definition of immediate vicinity. On behalf of
CFOA I am more than happy to develop all these issues with the
Committee, if they so wish. We believe that if these amendments
are made they will still meet with the RRO safeguards of proportionality,
fair balance and desirability.
Q17 Chairman: Thank you very much for
that. We are going to ask you a number of questions. At the end,
if there is any particular point which you believe it is important
you should make today, by all means do so in the final bit, and,
equally, write to us fairly speedily if you go away and think
there is something you really ought to have said while you were
here. The first two questions are exactly the same as I asked
the FBU. I wonder if you could give us your views on the way the
process has been conducted so far.
Mr Marles: From CFOA's perspective,
we have watched the process with interest. We understood the route
that the Regulatory Reform Order would take through Parliament
and were gladdened by the fact that the way the process works
in Parliament is not constrained by whichever government is in,
and all those sorts of things seem to be fairly clear in our mind
as to the way that the Regulatory Reform Order is perceived. As
Mr Evans of the FBU has told you, there has been some kind of
delay in producing the legislation, which has been fortunate for
us because it has allowed us to produce some more guidance documents
than we might have done had it lived with its original process
dates, but I think generally we have been quite happy with the
process. We were widely consulted, as were many other organisations,
in the beginning with the Government's proposals. We made quite
a substantive comment back on those proposals in July 2002 in
the consultation document and, except for some of the issues which
we now raise with you, many of the issues we raised at the time
with ODPM and in conversation with the ODPM and other officials
have been taken account of and I think we are fairly happy with
the process and the way it has gone forward.
Q18 Chairman: Following on from that,
do you think that appropriate action has been taken on issues
or not? Obviously you raised points in your response to the consultation.
Do you think some of them have or have not? How do you feel it
has gone?
Mr Marles: In our original submission,
from July 2002, many of those points have been taken account of
and are included, and you can see the direct read-across into
the legislation as it now stands. Like I said, there are some
issues still outstanding. This article 2 definition seems to have
come up fairly recently and we were quite surprised when we read
that in the document that was placed before yourselves on May
10 when it first came to Parliament. Other than that, we are quite
happy that we have been consulted and connections with the officials
in the ODPM are quite robust.
Q19 Chairman: It might help you to know
that I have been on this Committee and its predecessor since it
was formed and it is very unusual for any Government Order actually
to go forward in the end in the way that they do, so they do take
notice of the things we put forward. Our proceedings do help the
Government to look at things.
Mr Marles: That is good.
|
