Eland House, Central London
As a business owner, you are probably aware that you have to undertake fire risk assessments, so that you remain within the bounds of the laws on fire safety. More and more companies are being fined using laws that are designed to keep people safe from fires. So, you would expect that the government, which lays down these laws, would be following the same laws – right? Well, not entirely…
A BBC investigation has shown that the government has been breaking its own laws on fire safety. The difference is that while private companies and individuals face huge fines or prison sentences, ministers and civil servants need not worry about such things. That’s because they work in buildings classed as crown premises and crown immunity from prosecution covers fire safety laws. Only if someone was to die in a disaster might they find themselves in court under different legislation. And the government is not always as good at following the fire safety regulations as perhaps you might think.
Serious failings have emerged at one central government headquarters and other breaches have been uncovered at other parts of the country.
Eland House in central London, houses the government department which is responsible for fire safety legislation enforcement. In February 2010, the Department issued a Crown Enforcement Notice against the then Secretary for Communities and Local Government, for breaking fire regulations in the department’s headquarters. This followed a safety inspection which was carried out in November 2009 by fire staff employed by the Department.
The report warned that there was a risk of uncontrolled fire-spread throughout the building, the fire risk assessment had not been adequately updated, smoke vents were not properly maintained, no fire marshals had been appointed, and the building was unable to support a phased evacuation, due to changes in the main atrium.
Quite a list of faults, and ones that could lead to prosecution for a privately-owned firm. However, crown immunity, which covers buildings that house government departments, palaces, prisons etc, means that the same penalties do not apply to such premises. Basically, those in government escape the full force of law, while those in private business face ever larger fines and risk of imprisonment.
So, let’s look at an example in a privately-owned business. In April 2007, there was a fire in a New Look store in Oxford Street, London. Although no-one was hurt in this fire, it was a very big fire, which more than 150 fire fighters and 30 fire engines attended. In the investigation that followed, it emerged that the fire alarms had been going off in the store for 20 minutes before the fire brigade was called by a person outside the store. The staff at the store were insufficiently trained to deal with a fire, and escape routes were blocked. The firm was prosecuted and fined £400,000. An appeal failed, as the judge said that although no death or injury occurred, there was potential for serious injury or death given range of deficiencies.
The courts are definitely taking a harder line than they may have previously – prosecutions went up by 43% in the private sector last year.
However, government buildings are not subject to such fines and prosecution.
Bob Neill, Minister for the Fire Services, said:
“Since learning of the Crown Enforcement Notice [on Eland House] we inherited from the last administration, I have made it my priority to resolve this issue and practice what we preach. The new Government is committed to high standards of fire safety and we’ve now put our own house in order.”
Is it right that the government is not subject to the laws that it lays down? You decide…
