Memorandum from Professor Rosemarie Everton
I would be grateful if I might submit certain
brief observations regarding the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety)
Order, (hereinafter the RRO). In so doing, I would explain that
I do so purely on a personal basis, and not with any reference
to my former membership of the Fire Safety Advisory Board.
My observations are attached in an Annex, and
I would thank you in anticipation of any consideration which might
be afforded them.
20 May 2004
Annex
I would begin by referring back to my (again
personal) response of 18th November 2002 to the Consultation Document
on the Reform of Fire Safety Legislation.
Inter alia, I pointed out that, in relation
to what might be called "higher risk premises", I had
concerns about the intensification and extension of a "self
compliance" régime. I said that while I appreciated
the European inspiration of such a re«gime, and the UK obligations
as a Member State, there seemed to me weakness in a system which,
given the spectrum of competence of responsible persons, threw
upon individuals the pivotal task of making a fire risk assessment
(and then implementing the necessary measures).
I put forward my view that certain potential
consequences of the envisaged control mechanism raised associated
difficulty, viz:
— First, upon the adoption of a virtually
exclusive self compliant re«gime, there was the loss of certification.
Set against the oft quoted criticisms of this system, it had provided
both reassurance to the public and support for small business,
and, more basically, had served to reduce over years the incidence
of large fires and fire related injury.
— Secondly, with the taking away of
certification there was also removed the express, specific, statutory
duty to inspect. In support of this removal many cogent points
had been made[1]
but the loss still caused me disquiet. It seemed to me that if
certification and the express duty to inspect disappeared, there
would be a weakening of the impetus for the fulfilment of their
duties by the regulated, and the fulfilment of their functions
by the regulators.
(a)
the impossibility of imposing an express,
specific statutory duty with respect to the huge range of premises
required by European Law to be covered:
(b)
the inclusion, albeit implicit, of a duty
to inspect in the proposed enforcement programme; and
(c)
the benefits of a more flexible, "freer"
inspection system in which the prioritisation of inspections was
based on local knowledge.
— Thirdly, I had some doubts regarding
the proposed obligation cast on fire authorities to institute,
develop and maintain an enforcement programme, an obligation which
is central to the envisaged order of governance. What, I asked,
if it should prove inadequate?
I then went on to note that whereas each of
the problems presented a concern in itself, what caused me real
unease was their convergence. If their cumulative impact
were considered, then I thought, a serious question was raised
as to whether the system would be sufficiently rigorous for higher
risk premises—sufficiently rigorous, that is, in terms both
of the safety of the public, and of their reassurance as to their
safety.
And I asked whether there could be revisited
for high risk premises the concept of validation (as clearly expounded
in Fire Safety Legislation for the Future[2]).
At this stage of my present submission, I would
like to pay tribute to the great efforts of the Civil Servants
to create a sufficiently robust system, but I fear that the concerns
which I raised in my response, for me at least, have not disappeared.[3]
Most particularly, I would suggest that, with the loss of certification,
there is a pressing need for the institution of demonstrably adequate
enforcement machinery, a feature which appears currently to be
lacking.[4]
While making the point that my earlier mentioned
fears have not abated, I would add that rather they have intensified,
their intensification being due to the nature of the canvas on
which they have become projected. I would explain:
Fire safety (along with non fire related emergencies)
has become the subject of an enormous reform agenda, including
the White Paper,[5]
the development of integrated risk management planning, the Fire
and Rescue Services Bill, and the Draft Fire and Rescue National
Framework. Moreover, not only is each one of these initiatives
inherently complex, the agenda overall is being driven with unprecedented
speed.
It is a situation which, I believe, raises two
issues for the RRO:
I take first the narrower one:
Amongst the consequences of the reform agenda
is the fact that the enforcement of fire safety law is no longer
a discrete activity. With the adoption of the integrated risk
management approach[6]it
becomes drawn into a single channel along with intervention and
community fire safety. Although this intermingling is regarded
as the path to greater safety, it surely leaves question marks
over fire safety law enforcement. Might it become "squeezed"
between the more glamorous and attractive rôles of intervention
and community fire safety? Might the numbers of experienced fire
safety officers dwindle? Might those remaining find themselves
insufficiently esteemed?
I turn now to the wider of my two issues, and,
with it, would conclude my submission. Inasmuch as the Order is
a constituent part of a reform programme marked by sheer size
and pace of delivery, I would ask whether these characteristics
might not jeopardise its long term success?[7]
My anxiety is that they could do so, and, given the subject matter,
this could be far more than simply a pity.
venture.
1 These included: Back
2
A Consultation Document. Home Office/The Scottish Office, November
1997. Back
3
Although I glean some consolation from the introduction of the
notion of "Alterations Notices". Back
4
I am aware that the FBU is raising this critical need with you,
and I do not dwell upon it. Back
5
"Our Fire and Rescue Service", Cm 5808. Back
6
-an approach expressed by means of integrated risk management
plans ("IRMPs"). Back
7
As indeed, as I have mentioned elsewhere, they could jeopardise
the success of the "whole" Back
|
