Appendix C
Letter from the Clerk of the Committee to the
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Thank you for your letter of 11 June which set out
the Department's response to the questions posed by the Committee
in my letter of 27 May.
In that letter I noted that the Committee would be
considering aspects of the proposal at a subsequent meeting. The
Committee considered these aspects at its meeting yesterday and
resolved to raise additional issues with the Department. The issues
which concern the Committee are set out below, together with questions
arising from them, under the relevant categories for consideration
set out in the Committee's Standing Order. For clarity, the sequence
of question numbers follows that given in my earlier letter.
In your letter of 11 June you noted that the Department
was seeking information from the Scottish Executive to enable
it to provide a full response to questions 18 to 20 posed by the
Committee on 27 May. The Committee would be content to receive
a response to those questions at the same time as the Department's
response to the questions set out below.
Whether the proposal has been the subject of,
and taken appropriate account of, adequate consultation (S.O.
No. 141(6)(c))
1. The Committee has noted the substantial number
of responses to the consultation on the proposed Order, and the
resulting amendments to the proposal identified by the Department
in the explanatory statement.
2. The Committee recognises that it has not been
possible to provide a full analysis of the consultation responses
in the explanatory statement. It nevertheless considers that the
consultation raised certain issues of concern which may not have
been fully addressed in the explanatory statement.
3. In particular the Committee recognises the Department's
exposition of the way in which necessary protections have been
retained in the case of each local Act which is proposed to be
amended by the draft Order, but is concerned to know how the provisions
have taken account of the representations made on the potential
removal of protections.
Q 21 Please indicate the grounds on which
several fire brigades, local authorities and fire safety consultants,
among others, considered that the proposals in the consultation
paper did not maintain necessary protections, and what account
the Department took of these representations.
Q 22 Please indicate what account the Department
has taken of the representations made concerning the likely costs
to fire brigades, and what amendments (if any) have been made
to the proposal as a result.
Q 23 Please indicate what account has been
taken of consultation responses questioning the specific protection
removed by the proposed repeal of local Acts, and, following consultation,
what provisions (if any) have been introduced into the proposed
Order to retain that protection.
Q 24 Please indicate what account the Department
has taken of representations which questioned the need for a duty
of care on employees to tackle a fire in its early stages using
hand-held equipment.
Q 25 Please indicate what account was taken
of concerns raised by small businesses (for example, over the
cost of compliance with the proposals).
Q 26 Please indicate what account has been
taken of responses from those sectors which were not previously
included within the specific provisions of fire safety legislation
(e.g. the self-employed and voluntary sectors).
Q 27 Please indicate what account has been
taken of concerns raised over the proposed Order's application
to high-risk premises.
Whether the proposal has been the subject of,
and taken appropriate account of, estimates of increases or reductions
in costs or other benefits which may result from its implementation
(S.O. No. 141(6)(m))
4. The Department has provided an estimate of the
increases or reductions in costs or other benefits which may result
from the proposal's implementation in the form of a regulatory
impact assessment (RIA). The RIA makes significant claims about
the savings to business and the fire service from the implementation
of the proposed order, and the estimated costs of compliance.
5. The Committee seeks to assess the robustness of
the assumptions in the RIA before reporting its assessment of
the proposal to the House. The questions below are intended to
assess various aspects of the RIA. They are based on the text
of the RIA as annexed to the explanatory statement, and do not
take account of any additional relevant material which may have
been included in the text of that statement.
Economic cost of fire
Q 28 The Department estimates that the number
of fires in England and Wales will reduce by 5 to 15% as a result
of the proposed Order. Please indicate the evidence the department
has which supports an assumption of a reduction in this range.
Q 29 Please indicate whether, in arriving
at the forecast reduction rates to fires, the Department made
any analysis of the trend in business
fires over recent years. Please also indicate the basis for the
assumption in the RIA that the trend in business fires will remain
constant, and whether the introduction of the proposed Order is
likely to affect the prevailing trend.
Q 30 The Committee notes that the premises
types used to compile the table at Annex A of the RIA exclude
voluntary sector and self-employed fire number and cost statistics.
Please explain why these have not been incorporated, and indicate
the effect, if any, which incorporation would have on the result.
Q 31 The Economic Cost of Fire Estimates for
2000 put the total cost of fire for commercial premises at £2.2
billion, whilst Annex A to the RIA shows a consequential cost
figure of £786.4 million. Please explain why the consequential
and not the total cost figure has been used to prepare the RIA.
Savings from fewer false alarms
Q 32 The RIA states (on page 6) that currently
"only a third of false alarms are generated by faulty equipment".
Please indicate the basis for the Department's assumption that
false alarms will reduce overall by between 5 and 15% as a result
of the draft Order.
Q 33 Please indicate why the fire service
savings figures are based on 2000 costs and not more recent figures,
and the assessment the Department has made of the trend in fire
service costs over the last three years.
Q 34 Please indicate how the potential savings
to business from reductions to the incidences of false alarms
has been calculated.
Overall savings for the Fire Service
Q 35 Please indicate the basis for the assumption
that direct enforcement action by the fire authorities, rather
than as third parties consulted by those administering other regimes,
will reduce false alarms. Does the Department consider that the
number of enforcement actions is likely to increase?
Q 36 Please indicate the analysis the Department
performed on the likely costs to the Fire Authorities of risk-based
inspections. Are these costs likely to be higher than certification
work if more judgment is needed on the part of inspecting officers?
Q 37 The RIA states that the number of inspections
is not expected to change and nor are the resources available.
Please indicate the basis for this assumption.
Q 38 Please indicate how any increase in costs
to the Fire Service are to be funded, since fire authorities will
no longer levy certification charges.
Q 39 The Committee notes that the removal
of certification revenue from fire authorities appears to represent
a net loss to them. Please indicate whether this revenue is to
be made up from other sources. If fire authorities are to conduct
the same number of inspections for the same resources, is there
any risk of a shortfall?
Savings for business
Q 40 Please indicate whether the figures for
savings to businesses from a reduction in false alarms assume
that all false alarms occur during the working day, and the analysis
(if any) which has been made of the costs of false alarms occurring
outside normal working hours.
Q 41 What effect would incorporation of this
analysis have on the estimated savings to businesses from fewer
false alarms?
Q 42 If the effect of the RRO is to reduce
the number and seriousness of fires, the insurance industry should
have to pay out less in claims and so premiums for business should
reduce. Please indicate whether the Department expects premiums
to fall as a result.
Q 43 If premiums do not fall, is there not
a risk of a double cost to business of the same insurance premiums
and additional compliance costs?
Q 44 Please state the evidence for the Department's
assumptions made in respect of the costs of purchasing new guidance
and familiarisation with it by businesses?
Q 45 Please indicate whether the Department
has considered the need for ongoing advertising costs, to avoid
a return to the current low level of awareness of fire safety
regulations amongst business.
Whether the proposal includes provisions to
be designated in the draft order as subordinate provisions (S.O.
No. 141(6)(n))
6. Article 51(1) of the draft Order designates articles
9 to 22 as subordinate provisions amendable by a subordinate provisions
order subject to the negative procedure. In paragraph 365 of the
Explanatory Statement the Department states that the fact that
these articles implement European obligations provides an external
control on the extent to which the articles could be amended.
Any amendment to articles 9 to 22 would have to be compatible
with European law, but it appears to the Committee that the power
to amend the relevant articles could have a broader application.
Q 46 Please indicate whether, in the Department's
view, articles 9 to 22 could be amended otherwise than in implementation
of European obligations, in particular by imposing additional
requirements.
7. Article 51(1) also designates article 45 as a
subordinate provision. The Department argues that this may be
required to avoid any conflict with Buildings Regulations, if
the latter were to impose consultation requirements.
Q 47 Please indicate the potential changes
to article 45 which are envisaged, and whether it would in practice
be possible to avoid any potential conflict in the drafting of
subsequent Buildings Regulations.
I would be grateful to receive your response to the
above questions, together with any further information the Department
believes would be helpful to the Committee, not later than Friday
2 July.
It is possible that the Committee may cover some
or all of the ground outlined by the questions above in oral evidence
with the Minister on 29 June. Should the Department consider that
a proposed response to a question above has been entirely superseded
by the evidence given by the Minister, it would be appropriate
to indicate accordingly.
16 June 2004
| 
