- Amendments 14, 19 and 23, tabled by Lord Porter of Spalding, which would require the Government to introduce guidance in the form of an approved code of practice, before commencing the Bill. The approved code of practice would seek to ensure that the limited resources available to carry out the reviews of fire risk assessments required by the Bill were allocated between buildings as far as possible on the basis of risk.
LGA view
This LGA fully supports this amendment. It reflects our concern that there are too few fire risk assessors who are both competent and insured to review the fire risk assessments of buildings with external wall cladding systems, as will be required when the Fire Safety Bill becomes law. This issue has been acknowledged by the Government.
One consequence of this could be that responsible persons find themselves required to review their fire risk assessments by law but are unable to do so, due to a lack of assessors. Another possible consequence is that competition for the services of the small number of assessors drives up the cost of assessment, with negative implications for council finances. This competition could also leave higher risk premises at the back of a long queue for updated fire risk assessments, while lower-risk properties with wealthier owners are assessed first.
The amendment seeks to ensure two outcomes. First, to protect responsible persons in law, where they are genuinely unable to review their fire risk assessments. Second, to – as far as is possible – ensure that higher risk premises are assessed before lower risk premises.
In relation to the second objective, the task and finish group set up by the Government is devising a risk prioritisation tool, to be contained in the approved code of practice. This would enable judgements to be made based on the various factors that determine the risk a building poses, such as height, number of staircases, vulnerability of residents and provision of sprinklers. The LGA has not been involved in devising this tool as it does not have the expertise to do so. Instead, the work has been carried out by a group including the National Fire Chiefs Council and Fire Sector Federation experts. The tool will enable buildings to be placed into one of a number of risk-prioritised categories.
- Amendment 7, tabled by Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Whitty, which would require the schedule for inspecting buildings in relation to buildings which contain two or more sets of domestic premises to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types of buildings.
LGA view
The LGA does not object to this amendment. However, we believe that inspectors are already required to take account of risk when enforcing the Fire Safety Order. This amendment could, therefore, only require enforcing authorities to prioritise buildings on the basis of risk for the purposes of inspection. In contrast, Lord Porter’s amendment is aimed at insuring that this prioritisation informs the order in which fire risk assessments are reviewed. This amendment on its own would not prevent high risk buildings from being forced to the back of the queue for review due to the increased cost of assessments resulting from a shortage of assessors.
- Amendment 12, tabled by Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which would ensure that the Government must consider whether there is a skills shortage in the United Kingdom in relation to the requirements of the Act.
- Amendment 22, tabled by Lord Kennedy of Southwark, which would ensure a review takes place to consider whether enough fire safety inspectors are employed in England or Wales to carry out the duties arising from the Act.
LGA view
The above amendments compliment Lord Porter’s amendment. The latter refers to a study which we think Lord Porter’s amendment would necessitate in order for the guidance it requires to be produced. While the LGA does not object to requiring this review in statute, to do so might delay the commencement of the Bill. Equally, to commence the Bill without such a review could render the Bill unworkable even with the guidance Lord Porter’s amendment would require. A balance must be struck between commencing the Bill as soon as possible so that the fire service can use the powers it confers and assessing the size of disparity between the number of fire risk assessments that will need review and the capacity of the fire risk assessment industry.
The former amendment suggests a wider review which need not delay the Bill’s commencement and would be welcome but would not necessarily remove the need for the more specific inquiry in New Clause 3.