New Clause.—(DUTY OF APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, IF NOT CONCERNED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS, TO CONSULT AUTHORITY SO CONCERNED BEFORE REQUIRING ALTERATIONS TO BE MADE.) (Hansard, 6 March 1963)

§ Mr. Whitelaw
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause raises a point which was advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) during the Committee stage discussions. Its purpose is simple. It provides that the fire authority shall consult the building byelaw authority before requiring the occupier to make structural changes to his premises in order to improve the means of escape in case of fire. As I stated during the Committee stage discussions, it was always our intention that such consultations should take place as they do in similar circumstances under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1961. We did not then consider it essential to write statutory requirements into the Bill. However, in view of the well-reasoned arguments advanced by both hon. Members in the Committee we agreed that, on balance, it would be right and preferable to put such a provision in the Bill, The Clause is somewhat lengthy. The reason is that the three subsections take account of the different legislation affecting England and Wales, Scotland, and London. But in principle they are substantially the same.

§ Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
I am wondering whether the wording of the Clause meets the points put forward in Committee and the purpose behind the arguments then advanced. The basis of those arguments was that the powers of the local authority to prevent premises from being passed as satisfactory under building byelaws and so on, had been eliminated by the wording of the Bill.
The wording of the present Clause is extremely complex and complicated and it is difficult to appreciate whether it meets the position. It states: Before the appropriate authority"— that is the authority issuing the certificate— … inform the applicant for the issue of a fire certificate … that they will not issue the 463 certificate unless specified alterations are made to the premises … they will consult the local authority. Does that meet the point? This wording is saying that before the property is rejected and the authority says it will not issue a certificate, it will consult the local authority. What happens after the local authority has been consulted? Has the local authority power to do anything, it haying been consulted, or is the local authority satisfied merely to be consulted?
I should like a further elaboration of the effect of the Clause. So far as I understand it—that is not very far because I am not a lawyer—I do not see that the wording of the Clause meets the point it is intended to cover. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy hon. Members that it does.

§ Mr. Hannan
I do not object to the Parliamentary Secretary giving credit to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) in respect of this Clause. But is it not the case that during the Committee stage discussions on Clauses 24 and 25 I made the point that it did not follow that the fire authority and the local authority were always the same? It was in respect of that point that the Parliamentary Secretary promised to look at the matter and I think that the point is met by the provisions in this Clause. At the beginning of the Clause it states: Before the appropriate authority"— here is meant the fire authority— inform the applicant for the issue of a fire certificate … it has to consult the local authority. That is all that is being asked to be done—

§ Mr. J. Hynd
Before the authority will not issue a certificate.

§ Mr. William Hannan
Yes. Before it will not issue a certificate, it will consult the local authority.
If I am rightly interpreting the Clause, its provisions eliminate any confusion between the fire authority and the local authority which is not always the same body. The position under the Factories Act, 1961, is that the administration of the provisions in the corresponding Sections is the duty of the master of works 464 or the city engineer, following a joint inspection of the premises with the fire authority. Am I right in thinking that in this Clause we are giving the fire authority precedence and that the administration of the provisions of Clause 25 passes solely to that authority in cases where it is considered that a fire certificate should not be issued? Here the fire authority is obliged to consult the local authority. If there happens to be a dispute between the two authorities and they are different bodies, who resolves the dispute? Is it referred to the Minister or to some other authority? I am not clear about what happens in such circumstances.
The point is that the officer responsible for fire prevention, or examining buildings in order to suggest possible structural alterations, is sometimes the borough engineer and sometimes the surveyor. The provisions in Clauses 25 to 33 in reference to fire prevention are now the responsibility of the fire authority. But in making the first inspection under the new Clause the authority, if it wishes to refuse a certificate, will have to consult the local authority.

§ Mr. Whitelaw
I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) that in his concluding sentences he has correctly stated the position. The fire authority will have the final say. This Clause follows in general the wording of Section 42 (4) of the Factories Act, 1961, and I think it has been agreed that the provision in that Act has worked satisfactorily.