The absence of any law on fire safety means that everyone and no one becomes responsible. And if there is no one who is responsible, then no one can be accused of negligence.

The point is not to point the finger of blame when things go wrong. Quite the contrary, what really matters is to prevent fires – and any loss of life or injuries – in the first place.

The June 14 Grenfell Tower tragedy in London, which left about 80 dead, highlighted that, even when there is a law, tragedies can occur, whether due to greed, fraud or negligence. However, the first step should be to fill in the vacuum of legislation.

WATCH: Fire safety neglected at Tal-Qroqq tunnels

Health and safety expert Aldo Busuttil told this newspaper that a number of issues had to be tackled because what exists now is a mere clause that applies to employers. Even if this were taken in its widest context, it still falls far short from encompassing all the different places where fires can break out.

From the materials used to deter fires, to the emergency exits, it is clear that standards need to be laid down, well beyond the guidelines already drawn up by the Building Industry Consultative Council. To put the complexity and comprehensiveness into some context, a fire safety order issued in London in 2005 is 65 pages long.

In general, the basic requirements listed in the order are to reduce risk of fire and of it spreading, ensuring there are unencumbered escape routes, installing detection and warning equipment, implementing fire-fighting measures and having trained staff.

Of course, there is much more to be considered: from having risk assessments to ensuring that the authorities have the details they would need should they ever be called in.

Particular places require specific considerations, which should also be part of the law. Hospitals need a ramp down which immobile patients can be taken – while still connected, if need be, to life support systems. Homes for the elderly should have evacuation procedures that reflect the state of health of its residents.

Mr Busuttil pointed out that if a fire broke out at night, when the staff complement tends to be smaller, there would have to be enough trained people to deal with the agonisingly slow process of getting panicky residents out through the dark and smoke-filled exit routes.

The Civil Protection Department’s role is also vital: abroad, the fire brigade does its own assessment before even a Christmas tree is put up, apparently. Here, how many building owners have submitted their blueprints to the CPD?

And the London order mentions training: how many staff members are properly experienced to deal with an actual fire, not in the sterilised atmosphere of a company training room but under the sort of pressure they would encounter if the unthinkable occurred?

Companies are supposed by law to have two fire drills a year. Yet, how many do?

We have seen from tragedies and bad experiences that risk assessments and evacuation procedures are not only vital in the case of a fire. The sooner someone bites the bullet and gets this legislation going, the sooner people will have a clear picture of what they are supposed to be doing. And then, woe betide those who ignore it.