Supplementary memorandum from the Head
of Fire Safety Legislation Branch, Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister
DEFINITION OF
"ESCAPE"In evidence
to the Committee, the Fire Brigades Union suggested that the term
"escape" should be defined in the RRO. The FBU noted
that, in relation to the Fire Precautions Act 1971, problems had
arisen with occupiers terminating means of escape in enclosed
courtyards which although away from the building (and so the scope
of the fire certificate) could not be regarded as a place of safety
in the event of a fire. As a result a definition of "escape"
had been added to the Act. The Union also noted that the definition
of premises in the RRO is much wider than in the Fire Precautions
Act and the protection afforded by the RRO would also apply to
relevant persons in the vicinity of the premises who may be placed
at risk by a fire on the premises.
ODPM would draw to the Committee's attention
that under the Order as drafted, it is necessary for the responsible
person to consider the risk to persons and in and around any place
for which they have responsibility. Consequently provision of
means of escape from the premises to a place of safety could not
result in the means of escape ending in an area in the vicinity
of the premises where relevant persons would still be at risk
in case of fire.
Therefore, the reasons why it was necessary
to define "escape" in the Fire Precautions Act 1971
simply do not arise in relation to the RRO and we do not think
it is necessary to include such a definition.
USE OF
"WHERE NECESSARY"
IN ARTICLES
13 AND 14 OF
THE DRAFT
ORDER
In response to a question from the Committee,
the matter of use of the term "where necessary" was
discussed. I believe this was a point raised by the Fire Brigades
Union when giving evidence. I drew attention to the preliminary
note to the Directive and it may assist the Committee if I expand
on what was said at the time.
There are two elements to the assertions made
by the Fire Brigades Union and the Chief Fire Officers' Association
in evidence to the Committee about use of the term "where
necessary".
The first is that, in the view of the FBU, use
of the term may contravene the requirements of European Directive
89/654/EEC.The second is that it may remove necessary protection.
The two points are inter-linked and I will deal
with the European point first.
Attention was drawn by the Fire Brigades Union
to the minimum requirements laid down in Annexes 1 and 2 of the
Directive—notably paragraphs 4.1 to 4.7—which concern
means of escape—and paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 which concern
fire fighting equipment. The FBU suggest that these are absolute
requirements. That is not the case. The preliminary note (paragraph
1) to the Annex states that
"the obligations laid down in the Annex
apply whenever required by the features of the workplace, the
activity, the circumstances or a hazard"
We have built that caveat in to Articles 13
and 14 by use of the term—"where necessary"—as
we did for the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations.
On the second point about necessary protection,
we do not believe such protection is removed. Indeed, how could
it be removed by a regime that requires these fire precautions
to be present when they are necessary to safeguard the safety
of persons? Of course the regime would not require precautions
to be present when they are not necessary. But if they are not
necessary to protect people then we take the view that the precautions
are not providing a necessary protection.
I should explain that although it may have been
possible under the Fire Precautions Act to require a particular
fire precaution be in place regardless of risk, the European Directive
based Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations over-ride that
and a risk assessment showing the provision is not necessary would
require the fire authority to change the fire certificate. So
the proposal, which maintains the level of protection provided
by the fire regulations, takes nothing away from the level of
necessary protection.
READ ACROSS
TO HEALTH
AND SAFETY
LEGISLATION
During discussion on 29 June, the question was
asked about read across to health and safety legislation—with
specific reference to use of co-terminous wording. It may be of
assistance to the Committee to know that articles 8(a), 9, 10,
11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 39, 40 and 41 are identical,
or very similar, to existing health and safety requirements (in
particular 8(a)—and the defence of so far as is reasonably
practical). In developing the RRO we took great pains to ensure
consistency with H & S. The enforcement provisions are also
modelled on the 1974 Act.
One difference we have included is that so far
as possible within the constraints of European law, the provisions
are subject to a due diligence defence—which does not apply
to health and safety regulations.
PUBLICITY FOR
THE NEW
REGIME
In evidence we discussed the ODPM proposals
for guidance and publicity. On the latter point, it may assist
the Committee to know that we are developing, in conjunction with
stakeholders, a publicity campaign to promote the new fire safety
regime. A group consisting of stakeholders which includes those
representing both the large business sector: the Confederation
of British Industry, and also those representing the small business
that is the Federation of Small Business and Small Business Service,
meet on a regular basis with the aim of ensuring the formulation
of an effective and informative publicity strategy.
With stakeholders we have identified that the
micro to small business sector could be difficult to target and
with this in mind it is likely that we will be writing to all
businesses as well as undertaking other activities. We expect
the activities undertaken will include publicity within Trade
Association Publications and a leaflet to be distributed by stakeholders.
Consideration is also being given to radio advertising as this
is seen as an effective means of reaching the target audience.
I should stress that no final decisions have yet been taken on
the detail of the media to be used and work continues in this
area.
ODPM recognise the possible need for further
advertising beyond the initial campaign and following the introduction
of the new regime. We are therefore looking into this (together
with stakeholders), taking into account other publicity activity
that may be underway at the time—both by ODPM and the stakeholders
we are working with.
7 July 2004
| 
