---

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the way in which she has presented this order to the House, which I hope is an augury of things to come. She was very clear and straightforward. I welcome that, as I do the order itself. It is not often that we see consolidation of legislation coming forward in quite this way. However, on reading through the schedules one can see the volume of legislation dating from the early 1970s under which businesses have had to labour. It is only proper that it should be consolidated into a system whereby it can all be found in one place. We welcome that and acknowledge all the work that has been done.

None would disagree that fire safety, particularly in premises in which there are large numbers of people, is one of the most important considerations. One must be able to go into premises with the confidence that one can get out if there is a fire and that proper precautions are in place. So, again, I welcome the order and the way in which it has been brought forward.

I also welcome the enormous amount of work on the part of both the Regulatory Reform Committee of the other place and our own Lords reform committee. On reading all the points raised by the committees, they have probably dealt a blow to any Opposition Front-Bencher who tries to outshoot them. They have done a significant job and we are grateful to them.
 
7 Jun 2005 : Column 842
 

One question raised by both the regulatory reform committees relates to the words "where necessary". They appear quite often in the order, but most specifically in Articles 13 and 14. I note that it is proposed to explain the term "where necessary" in the guidance. I shall touch on this briefly because Articles 13 and 14 leave the door open by leaving in place the question of whether you can get around fire precautions by saying that they are not necessary. That is worrying. Article 13 states:

"Where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances)".

Surely the words "where necessary" are not needed because this is an absolute requirement. Can the Minister touch on what the guidance is likely to say about the term in Articles 13 and 14, because it also appears quite frequently in other articles, although with a slightly different connotation because in those it is made clear that there is an opportunity for the door to be left open on whether or not things are done?

I should also like to ask the Minister when the suite of guidance brochures or leaflets is likely to be ready. There is a suggestion that the order might be delayed beyond its implementation date of April 2006 if the guidance is not ready. The Minister said that the consultants have already started work and that consultation on the guidance is taking place with stakeholders. However, since we are now in June, how long is putting the guidance together anticipated to take? Why might it be necessary to delay publication beyond April 2006? I appreciate that if the guidance is not ready, it would be silly to introduce the order, but nine months should be long enough for the work to be carried out.

Can the Minister say a little more about who were the stakeholders in this exercise? The consultation was undertaken under the provisions of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and is set out in paragraph 22 of the statement from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but it does not seem to include any representatives from business. The noble Baroness has said that business interests were involved, and I wonder who was involved in the consultation that took place under the independent chairmanship of Pamela Castle and where the business representation came from. Lastly, who were the stakeholders?

I should be grateful for any insights in response to the questions I have put to the Minister. However, having said that, this legislation is well worth having and again I thank her for bringing it forward so clearly.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this topic so comprehensively. I am glad to have the opportunity to welcome it not only from our Front Bench, but also as a member of the sub-committee of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I want to make only one or two comments. We all agree with the nowadays commonly held view that we want to get rid of unnecessary and burdensome red tape, but when it comes to the detail of specific proposals it is not always as straightforward as one might think to decide what is unnecessary and what is overly burdensome. To a certain extent, some trial and error takes place as regulatory
 
7 Jun 2005 : Column 843
 
reform orders come before Parliament. One of the jobs of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is to come to a view, express that to Parliament and then to the House on whether the spirit of the Regulatory Reform Act has been met.

7 pm

It is true to say that there are one or two concerns about this order, not just in the substance but also in the principle. Of course, it is absolutely right that we should consider how to amalgamate this enormous raft of existing legislation. Very often we simply add more legislation on to legislation without really reviewing what already happens. That is one of the reasons why we on these Benches are often keen on sunset clauses which provide a chance to see whether a measure is still necessary.

Certainly on fire safety, the measures have reached a point where it is counter-productive and inimical to fire safety to have such a complex situation. That has resulted in an RRO which is very large, and there are some concerns about whether this procedure is the correct one for such a large change to our legislative framework. That was particularly worrying as some fire legislation was passing through the House at the time.

I want to put down a marker. I believe that the House will be concerned to ensure that the RRO procedure is not routinely used as a way of bypassing normal legislative processes, where proper scrutiny is available through amendments and through debate in your Lordships' House.

The substantive concerns brought forward by the committee were mostly concerned with provisions for necessary protection to ensure that there was nothing in the RRO that left holes that previously were covered by statutory protection. The key worry was the replacement of a statutory duty with a more general duty to enforce fire safety. I believe that the committee was very concerned to see that the fire safety enforcement authorities were monitored so that central government and Parliament have an idea about how well they are doing that job. In the end, after some discussion, the department was able to convince the sub-committee that that was all right.

One remaining point is a personal concern rather than one that relates to something that was raised in the committee. It strikes me that the main beneficiaries of RROs are meant to be small businesses. Many small businesses share office premises with a number of other businesses. Often premises are rented from companies who often do not own them, so I am slightly concerned about how one pins down who is the responsible person. The RRO is very clear about it being the employers in the main, but if, for example, there are seven or eight companies in one building, who is responsible for shared areas such as lifts and stairwells? To an extent, the regime will be only as good as the least compliant person. Therefore, we have to be very careful to ensure that there are no loopholes in understanding who are the responsible people. With those comments, we offer our general support to this RRO.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was a member of the committee in the previous Session, and I took part
 
7 Jun 2005 : Column 844
 
in the earlier discussions, although I was not able to attend during March for discussion of the most recent reports of the committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has said something important. One may question whether a 66-page document changing the law of the land should be passed by Parliament in this way. It seems to be quite clear from the very careful and complicated speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that it is not possible to take in the whole order at a sitting like this. Had noble Lords all been present at the considerations in the committee, they would understand what the noble Baroness was saying, but I cannot believe that it is possible fully to understand all that is being said this evening.

This regulatory reform regime has involved the House delegating to a Select Committee the job of scrutinising a very large piece of quite complicated legislation. The House of Commons has done likewise. The question arises whether a reform order like this is too large to be treated in this way. A subsidiary question is that as legislation on similar subjects was going through Parliament, was it necessary to do it in this way at all? I want to endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, as I believe the Government need to consider this matter when looking at all the regulatory arrangements that we have at the moment.

On page 8 of the 14th report of the committee, paragraph 37 states:

"The committee notes that, at paragraph 69 of its second Statement the Department states: 'The Department [the ODPM] wishes to assure the Committees that ODPM are working closely with Scottish Authorities to ensure that reform of general safety law can be achieved in full in Scotland and as close together in time as possible, subject to the processes of the two Parliaments'".

In Scotland, similar changes are being made, as the Minister told the House. Can she tell us whether the Scottish Parliament's arrangements coincide with the arrangements being made at Westminster? Will the arrangements be in place in Scotland soon? This is all extremely important as it affects the safety of so many people across the United Kingdom. We need to know how things are progressing in Scotland.

---