---

Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I believe that I made the Government's position on this matter clear at Second Reading. Although we clearly recognise the significant potential benefits that sprinkler systems can offer, and that there is a place for imposing their provision through regulation in some circumstances, we would regulate only where such provision was proportionate to the risk. In this context, it might be helpful if I briefly set out views on the amendments, and outlined the nature of any review which the Government would see as necessary before reaching a conclusion on further amendments to the building regulations. Of course, we have sympathy with the thrust of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Best, in calling for a review. Such matters can be complex. Although on the face of it, the use of sprinklers would undoubtedly assist with further reducing the terrible effect of fire, there will be technical matters and regulatory burdens that we are obliged fully to consider before any decision on regulatory change. Similarly, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and his colleague the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, usefully highlight some of the issues that government would need to consider in revisiting and updating the building regulations on automatic fire suppression systems. We must recognise that any review would need to be sufficiently broad and comprehensive in its scope and involve not only the matters referred to by noble Lords today but many other issues, such as: undertaking a detailed and robust assessment of the costs and benefits; assessing the environmental impact both of the reduction in the size of fires, and of the environmental costs of the sprinkler systems themselves; future projections of our ageing population and what this could mean to fire risk; the safety of firefighters; and the extra facility of open-plan layouts where sprinklers are installed, to which the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred. Meanwhile, it would need to consider changes in construction practice and technology, and both UK and international experience and evidence. The collection and assimilation of all the available and relevant data for a review of this complexity will take some time and effort. I suggest that it would necessarily take longer than the six months suggested in the Bill for any changes to the building regulations to be made. The risk of forcing an unrealistic timetable is that decisions would be taken on the current evidence base, which would not move the issue forward. However, this is not an excuse for inertia; we need to move ahead with this as quickly as possible. Having said that, I reiterate—notwithstanding any such review, which we shall undertake whatever the destiny of my noble friend’s Bill—that we will continue to work on the variety of approaches to promoting increased fire safety that I outlined at Second Reading. I should bring to the attention of my noble friend Lord Harrison the reference in the Bill to British standards. Such a reference can result in problems with European directives on free trade and construction products, and such detailed matters are best left in the approved documents that support the building regulations. On sustainability, my department has recently issued a consultation on the future of the Code for Sustainable Homes. One of the issues on which we have asked for comment is whether there is a potential for the code to recognise the benefits of providing enhanced fire protection in new homes. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, the code will reward such enhancements and thus provide an inducement to homebuilders to consider sprinklers more favourably. In conclusion, I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for his continued commitment to the cause of fire safety. The Government share common cause with him in seeking to further reduce fire deaths and injuries, and I hope that we can continue to work together to that end in the manner to which he referred.