HC Deb 05 July 1938 vol 338 cc313-8

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Colville

I beg to move, in page 17, line 17, at the end, to insert: (4) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the county council of any of the following counties videlicet: Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Orkney, Ross and Crornarty, Sutherland, Zetland, or with the town council of any burgh situated in any such county, by or ler direct that the provisions of this Act in their application to such county or burgh shall have effect as if—

  1. (a) Sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section one and Sections eight to thirteen were omitted; and
  2. (b) the word 'may' were substituted for the word 'shall'—
    1. (i) where that word first occurs in Sub-section (1) of Section two; and
    2. (ii) in Sub-section (8) of the said Section.
(5) The council of any county or burgh to which an order under the last foregoing Sub-section applies may make such provision for the extinction of fires and the protection of life and property in case of fire as they may deem necessary and practicable, and for that purpose may either themselves provide and maintain fire services or enter into arrangements with other county and town councils or other persons to secure the provision and maintenance of such services.

This Amendment is one to which I referred earlier this evening, to empower the Secretary of State for Scotland to exempt the crofter counties and the burghs therein from the compulsory powers of the Bill and to provide that only the enabling provisions shall apply. These counties present special problems in the way either of numerous islands or of sparsity of population and length and difficulty of communications. To give the House an example, Orkney has no fewer than 28 inhabited islands and Shetland 23, and the population in the landward areas, at the last census, of the county of Sutherland was one per 100 acres, and of Argyll, two. Included in other parts of Scotland, but not in the crofter areas, there are counties with very small populations. For example, Selkirk has the same figure of two per 1000 acres at the last census. But I had to consider, along with population, the questions of communications and transport, and when I had done so, I came to the conclusion that this proposal would only be justified in the case of the crofter counties. In the form in which I have proposed it, it makes it clear that the enabling powers which the authorities at present have will not be interfered with.

9.52 p.m.

Sir E. Findlay

While I am not opposed to this Amendment, I would ask my right hon. Friend to remember that while the distances are not very great, the distances for enemy aircraft—and, after all, this is a Bill which is principally concerned with air-raid precautions—to Moray, Nairn and Banffshire are equally great, and I hope that in another place he can propose an Amendment which will enable those counties also to be exempt from the provisions of this Bill.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Davidson

I want briefly to ask the Minister, in regard to these particular areas, to exercise the greatest care and discretion in allowing them any freedom from what we may term the national responsibility that has fallen upon these areas. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the areas mentioned here are recognised locally in Scotland as the most backward areas so far as providing facilities for the people resident in them are concerned. Those local authorities have taken the least initiative in Scotland to assist in the development of their local areas in accordance with modern production and life, and I there- fore trust that while not opposing this Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman will in no way assist these local authorities to carry on their very reactionary policy of the past in not dealing with the needs of the local population.

Amendment agreed to.

9.54 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. James Reid)

I beg to move, in page 17, line 19, at the end, to insert: (5) Sub-section (4) of Section one of this Act shall apply in like manner as if section two hundred and eighty-seven of the Public Health Act, 1936, applies to Scotland. There was added to Clause 1 a new Sub-section (4), which deals with the power of entering premises in order to carry out duties under this Bill, and the code for regulating entry upon such premises, as already passed by the House, is to be found in the Public Health Act, 1936. There is no such code imposed in any existing Scottish Act, and we thought it right that we should carry over the English code to Scotland. More usually, I think, our code is adopted in England, but on this occasion it is appropriate that we should adopt the English code.

Amendment agreed to.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn

I beg to move, in page 17, line 26, to leave out from "employ" to "on" in line 28, and to insert: any constable holding the rank of inspector or any higher rank. This Amendment and the two following Amendments have been put down in order to fulfil an undertaking which we gave in Committee that we would permit, during the two years after the passing of this Measure, the employment of police officers of the rank of inspector and upwards, on administrative duties in connection with fire brigades. After the period of two years such employment will be restricted to chief constables and assistant or deputy chief constables and officers in burgh police forces holding rank similar to that of deputy chief constable. The Amendments are also intended to make it clear that this proviso shall not prevent the occasional employment of a constable to assist fire brigades at fires so long as the constable is not required to undertake duty as a permanent member of the fire brigade.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 17, line 30, leave out from "employ," to "brigade," in line 31, and insert: any constable (other than the chief officer of police or an assistant or deputy chief constable) as a member of the fire.

In line 32, leave out from "such," to "so," in line 34, and insert: constable (other than as aforesaid) shall be employed—

  1. (a) on administrative duties after the expiry of two years from the passing of this Act; or
  2. (b) as a part-time member of a fire brigade unless he was."—[Mr. Wedderburn.]

9.57 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn

I beg to move, in page 18, line 9, at the end, to insert: (8) Sub-section (2) of Section two of this Act shall have effect as if for the words 'rural district' there were substituted the words 'county or part thereof.' This Amendment applies the new proviso to Clause 2 (2) to Scotland. Its effect is to give the Secretary of State power, by order, to modify the provisions in Section 38 of the Waterworks Clauses Act, 1847, so as to enable the distances between hydrants in landward areas of counties to be greater than 100 yards.

Amendment agreed to.

9.58 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland

I beg to move, in page 18, to leave out line 10.

The words which it is proposed to leave out are unnecessary, because it is apparent that the Sections referred to do not apply to Scotland, and in those circumstances it is contrary to precedent that any references should be made in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn

I beg to move, in page 18, line 28, at the end, to insert: (13) Any provision of any enactment whereby an owner or occupier of premises is required to defray expenses or charges in respect of the attendance of a fire brigade at a fire outside the county, burgh, or district for which the fire brigade is maintained, shall cease to have effect.

This Amendment corresponds to the new Clause applying in England and Wales, which has already been discussed, dealing with charges for out-district fires.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Davidson

We have already protested very strongly against the attempt of the Minister to take away existing provisions which protect many local authorities who have built up efficient fire brigades. As I have stated again and again, and as I repeat now most emphatically, in order to try to obtain the attention of the representatives of the Scottish Office, if the Government continue to take away these rights which local authorities have won by obtaining Provisional Orders, then those local authorities will certainly not guarantee efficiency in future in dealing with fires outside their areas. Glasgow under a Provisional Order, approved by this House, is entitled to claim the maximum allowance for a turnout to a fire outside the Glasgow area. Within the area the authority are entitled to 50 per cent., with a maximum of £15, but outside that area they are entitled to claim 100 per cent. of the cost of turning out to a fire. The Secretary of State must realise that if the Government take away that right from burgh authorities who have set up efficient fire services, those authorities in future, however great the danger may be, however serious a fire may be, in adjoining areas, will say, "Parliament has taken away our right even to a minimum charge for turning out," and will hesitate before taking any steps.

This is not a peace-time Measure. It has been introduced because the Government realise that, in the future, air raids and other forms of warfare may cause fires of an unprecedented character. They want to have a national system, efficient, and well-equipped, operating in every area, to deal with such dangers. It is sheer nonsense and hypocrisy for the Government to say that they are merely anxious to have an efficient fire brigade service while at the same time they take away the rights of authorities which have efficient brigades to make even a small charge for going to fires outside their districts. The attitude of the Government ought to be to give the greatest facilities to those authorities which possess efficient brigades to assist other areas. We are now passing a Clause which will permit inefficiency in the counties, while leaving the efficient burgh authorities to say '"We are not going to undertake the expense of dealing with fires in neighbouring areas." The whole thing is a farce. The position stated by the Under-Secretary is a weak position, but I must say that that is nothing new. I have never heard him making a strong case since he undertook his present office. I realise the obstacles and the difficulties which he has to encounter in trying to square his views with a standstill policy. I ask hon. Members to recognise that the Government are asking that where a brigade is efficient and can go to the assistance of a county area which has not been able to build up an efficient brigade, that area need not do so because they will not have to meet one penny of the expenses of the efficient brigade.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 9, leave out Sub-section (15).—[Mr. Lloyd.]