Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-45)
15 JUNE 2004
DCFO ANDY MARLES
AND SDO NIGEL
CHARLSTON
Q40 Chairman: You are a good team.
Mr Charlston: Hopefully.
Mr Marles: That is one thing about
the fire service: always a good team!
Q41 Chairman: Mr Marles, my last point
really is to ask if there is anything you would like to raise
that we have not raised in questions before we close the session.
Mr Marles: If I may go back to
my original comments, and these are the little bits that come
up that I have not included in my response. One is about cooperation.
There is a requirement for those premises which are complex by
virtue of the number of people in them, and the number of responsible
persons possibly, that they must cooperate so that the overall
effect of safety in the building is maintained. But there is no
offence of failing to cooperate. If we go into a building and
find two people who are not even talking to each other and we
say, "But you must talk to each other," because that
affects the integrity of the building and the means of escape
and all the rest of it, and they say, "But we are not talking
to each other," we do not have a lot of power to make them
talk to each other. We think it would be appropriate for there
to be an offence of failing to cooperate. The alterations notice
comment is aligned to this definition of "relevant person"
that removes firefighters. If we felt that a building was equipped
in such a way—and there are some special premises that are
equipped in a special way for the ability of firefighters to handle
a fire—and we felt that was integral and so important to
the safety of the building and the people and the firefighters
who have to go into it afterwards to rescue people or whatever
that we might want to put an alterations notice on that building
for that very reason, to maintain it in the state that it is in
at the moment, the concern is that if you remove firefighters
from "relevant persons" we possibly—a legal point,
and I am not a lawyer—might not be able to place an alterations
notice on that building and we might want to. Again, not a major
issue. It would be a few very select premises to which that might
apply. On definition of "immediate vicinity" somebody
said to me the other day, "It would be nice if it were defined,
wouldn't it?" I said, "It would, but I guess that the
reasonable fire officer would look at it and say, `If that person
is there in relation to the fire in this building, are they at
risk? Yes, they are, therefore they are in the immediate vicinity'."
If I am stood here, I am not at risk, I am not in the immediate
vicinity. So I guess there is probably a way round it with a bit
of common sense and guidance perhaps from us to our fire officers.
So "immediate vicinity" was raised but I am not too
concerned perhaps on that point.
Q42 Chairman: On one or two occasions
you have tended to speak about the "British" fire service.
Mr Marles: Yes, I mean England
and Wales.
Q43 Chairman: What about the situation
in Scotland?
Mr Marles: Different from this,
I believe. I am not an expert at all on Scottish law. I believe
it is probably something similar in Scotland, but I would not
know the exact detail in Scotland at all. It is England and Wales
that the order applies to. I try to be all-inclusive.
Q44 Chairman: They obviously have some
devolved powers and they do have separate legislation.
Mr Marles: There is probably something
similar happening in Scotland, but I am not sure of the detail.
Q45 Chairman: That is fine. Thank you
for coming along. Obviously the evidence we have taken this morning
will help this Committee and hopefully this Committee will help
the Government. If you think of anything after you have gone away
and you want to write to us, do so as soon as possible.
Mr Marles: Thank you, sir.
Mr Charlston: Thank you.
| 
