HC Deb 06 March 1963 vol 673 cc454-6

If the appropriate authority are satisfied that the conditions in regard to escape in the case of fire in the case of any premises to which this Act applies are so dangerous that, until steps have been taken to remedy the danger, persons ought not (according to the circumstances of the case)—

  1. (a) to be employed to work in the premises or in a particular part thereof, or
  2. (b) to be employed to work in connection with the carrying on in the premises or in a particular part thereof of some particular process, or
  3. (c) to be employed to do in the premises or in a particular part thereof some particular work:
the authority may, if the premises are situate in England and Wales, make a complaint to a magistrates' court acting for the petty sessions area in which the premises are situate or, if they are situate in Scotland, make a summary application to the sheriff within whose jurisdiction they are situate, and the court or, as the case may be, the sheriff, on being similarly satisfied, may by order prohibit, to the extent appropriate in the said circumstances, the employment of persons to work in the premises until such steps shall have been taken as, in the opinion of the court or, as the case may he, the sheriff, are necessary to remedy the danger.—[Mr. Whitelaw]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Whitelaw

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

It may be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss at the same time the following related Amendments: In Clause 26, page 19, line 31, leave out subsection (6).

In Clause 71, page 49, line 10, leave out "(6)" and insert "(5)".

In Clause 71, page 49, line 10, after second "(2)", insert: and section (Power of magistrates' and sheriffs courts to make orders for putting down dangerous conditions in regard to means of escape in case of fire)".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

If that is convenient to the House, so be it.

Mr. Whitelaw

This new Clause, as I think the hon. Member for Maryhill has recognised, is really consequential on the last one. The last new Clause required all premises to be provided with such means of escape as were reasonable in the circumstances of the case. This new Clause replaces Clause 26 (6) which empowered the magistrate's court to make orders on a complaint from the appropriate authority putting down dangerous conditions relating to the means of escape in premises requiring a fire certificate under Clause 25. This new Clause extends this power to all premises covered by the Bill and is designed to ensure that persons employed in all such premises will enjoy this safeguard against dangerous conditions.

The Amendment in Clause 26, page 19, line 31 is consequential, and two Amendments in Clause 71, page 49, line 10 make the necessary changes in relation to premises owned or occupied by the Crown.

Mr. Hannan

The Parliamentary Secretary has rightly said that this new Clause replaces Clause 26 (6). I think that some of us are inclined to reproach ourselves because we did not see an obvious error in the drafting. Subsection (6) says: If, in the case of any premises with respect to which a fire certificate is in force … the conditions … are so dangerous that, until steps have been taken to remedy the danger persons ought not … to be employed to work in the premises or in a particular part thereof … If one examines these words closely, one sees that no fire certificate should have been issued if such conditions in fact prevail.

The new Clause seems to rectify the situation by saying that if the authority is satisfied that the conditions in regard to escape are not sufficient, or that there are certain dangers, these must be obviated before a certificate is issued, and it then outlines the procedure of which the applicant can avail himself, and in that respect I think it makes the Bill a little more comprehensible.

Mr. Graham Page

I am not sure whether the new Clause lays down any summary procedure. It says in the latter part that the authority may make a complaint to a magistrate's court, and it then says that the court may by order prohibit the use of the premises. Does that mean that it can be done ex parte, without any notice to the owner or occupier of the premises? Is that the object of the Clause—that in an urgent case, where quick action is necessary, this summary application can be made to the magistrates' court merely by complaint, and without the issue of any summons or notice to the party concerned? If it does, it goes a little far, and seems to adopt a new form of procedure.

My second point has nothing to do with the Clause. I am aware of the fact that the rubric does not form part of the Statute, but I hope that my right hon. Friend can find a better phrase than "putting down". It sounds like a reference to wine, or a rebellion, or, with a slightly different pronunciation, to golf. The last line of the Clause refers to remedying the danger, and I do not see why we should not use that phrase.

Mr. Whitelaw

It is not a new procedure. The procedure laid down here is similar to that in Section 41 (7) of the Factories Act, 1961.

Mr. Page

Does that mean that the owner or occupier has no notice before this matter comes before the magistrates' court?

Mr. Whitelaw

I shall have to check that point. I will do so, and let my hon. Friend know later.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.