Appendix E
Letter from the Engineering Construction Industry
Association to the Chairman of the Committee
Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety)
Order 2004
I am aware that you will be taking oral evidence
on the above from Phil Hope MP (Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) on 29 June.
ECIA is an employers' organisation that represents
companies involved in the construction and maintenance of large
and complex process plant such as oil refineries, power stations
and chemical plants. Fire safety is an important issue in such
environments.
We contributed to the earlier consultation on the
reforms and have examined the proposed reform order that has emerged.
The existing regime is manifestly complex and confusing and we
wholeheartedly welcome the proposed simplification of it. However,
we have some detailed concerns which we think could usefully be
addressed and clarified if the new regime is to achieve its full
potential. These concerns are relevant for all workplaces and
not just engineering construction. They are explained in the attached
annex.
I do hope that you will find the attached briefing
useful.
18 June 2004
Annex
Proposal for the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety)
Order 2004: comments from the Engineering Construction Industry
Association
1. The need for practical guidance
The proposed law is new and will create uncertainties
about what it requires in practice. Such uncertainty provokes
over-reaction amongst those anxious to assure compliance and this
may well be amplified by the contribution of the fire safety consultancy
industry.
Clear messages in the form of guidance are needed
to discourage both under and over-reaction. The current proposals
are unclear what will be provided in this respect.
2. Alterations Notices: when do they apply?
The criteria defining whether or not a company should
be under an Alterations Notice regime are not clear. There is
some danger of inconsistency across different enforcement agencies.
This would impact especially on companies who work in different
geographical regions.
There is a fear that placing companies under an Alternations
Notice regime may come to be used as a substitute for inspection
in companies, when an Alterations Notice is not appropriate on
the grounds of potential risk.
Clarification of Alterations Notice criteria would
reduce both the above concerns.
3. Alterations Notices: what changes should
be notified?
It is proposed that 'significant' changes should
be notified to the relevant authority. There is much uncertainty
what constitutes significant .
Uncertainty is likely to provoke excessive notification
to the authorities by companies anxious to assurance compliance.
This could create a bureaucratic burden disproportionate to the
risks involved.
Clarification of the meaning of significant would
reduce these concerns.
| 
