HC Deb 06 March 1963 vol 673 cc448-54

(1) All premises to which this Act applies shall be provided with such means of escape in case of fire for the persons employed to work therein as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case.

(2) In determining, for the purposes of this section, what means of escape may reasonably be required in the case of any premises, regard shall be had (amongst other things) not only to the number of persons who may be expected to be working in the premises at any time but also to the number of persons (other than those employed to work therein) who may reasonably be expected to be resorting to the premises at that time.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William Whitelaw)

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

It would perhaps be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendments which are very closely related: In Clause 25, page 16, line 35, leave out subsection (2).

In page 18, line 27, at end insert: (12) Subsection (2) of section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire) of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that. In Clause 30, page 21, line 35, at end insert: but nothing in regulations under this subsection shall be construed as being in derogation of the general obligation imposed by section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire) of this Act". In Clause 34, page 22, line 43, after "33", insert: and section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire)". In page 23, line 17, at end insert: and section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire)".

The Deputy-Speaker

That may be done if it is the wish of the House.

Mr. Whitelaw

This Clause arises from what we were all agreed was a most important and valuable discussion in Committee. At that time, I was most impressed by the points put forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) who, as we all know, has very great experience in all questions of fire prevention. I think that there was a general feeling in the Committee, shared by my right hon. Friend and myself, that everything possible must be done to ensure the safety of employees, not only in those establishments subject to certification by a fire authority but in all premises covered by the Bill. That was the purpose and that is the object of subsection (1) of this new Clause.

I should emphasise that the responsibility for compliance with this requirement will lie primarily with the occupier or owner where that is appropriate. The new provision does not alter the general intention that the fire authority should concentrate resources on examining those premises which by and large present the highest risks—for example, those requiring a fire certificate. What it does is what everyone wished for in Committee. It lays down that a means of escape should be provided in all premises.

Subsection (2) extends to all premises the requirement previously stated in Clause 25 (2) in connection with premises requiring certification. This lays down that regard should be had, in deciding what means of escape may reasonably be required, to the presence on the premises of persons other than those employed there.

I know that this was considered to be an important point. It is obviously important in shops and provides one way of dealing with the problems of such premises as supermarkets, upon which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) and I had some discussion in Committee. I hope he feels that this new Clause goes some way to meet the point he made then. In these places, of course, the numbers employed may be too few to make a fire certificate necessary but a number of visitors may often be present.

Our Amendment to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 25 is consequential. The Amendment to leave out subsection (6) of Clause 26 makes clear that the requirement will continue to apply to premises which require certification. The Amendment to insert a new provision in Clause 30 is designed to ensure that any regulations which may be made by the Minister as to the means of escape will not be construed in any way as detracting from the general obligations imposed by the new Clause.

Finally, the last two Amendments we are discussing with this new Clause are consequential, extending the references to the appropriate authority under Clause 34 to the administration of the new Clause.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)

In view of the very full explanation which the hon. Gentleman has given, there would appear to he little that one can say from this side of the House. I think, however, I should start by conceding that this is a concession to the points of view expressed from this side in Committee. I am glad to think that what was said has proved of value.

However, there is one small matter I wish to raise. One never gets all that one wants in these matters, and while it is true that the Clause says that all premises and not only those employing twenty people and more shall be provided with means of escape, what concerns me is that there is no force behind it. Who is to ensure that it is carried out? If it is not complied with, how will the delinquents be dealt with?

It may be argued that, in the next new Clause in the name of the Minister of Labour, some steps are taken to ensure that unless certain requirements are complied with for the avoidance of dangerous conditions, no certificates will be issued. That goes some way to meet the point, but surely premises other than uncertificated premises will not be subject to the same penalty.

Without this provision, I think it is true that the claim we made upstairs would remain—that 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of all shops would escape any requirement for fire prevention. Of course, the new Clause does not go as far as some of us would wish. We still think that the requirement of a minimum of twenty employees before a certificate is needed is far too high. In Committee we suggested that the number should be ten on the ground floor and only one person elsewhere in the building.

The Parliamentary Secretary said, quite rightly, that subsection (2) of Clause 25 is now to be deleted and added to this new Clause. The point that concerned us on Clause 25 was that there could be an anomaly whereby it would be possible for premises employing less than the stated number to have a large number of members of the public present and yet still not be subject to these statutory conditions.

Some of the premises we had in mind were self-service stores, betting shops and bingo halls. Are the two latter types of establishment to be covered? Public houses and auction rooms are also involved. These are premises which could very well have continued under this disability without the new Clause. The representations which have been made to me, and which were put forcefully in Committee by my hon. Friends, were that certification should be required for premises employing a smaller number than twenty people.

However, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have gone a long way to meet the point. While we are grateful to them for that we also hope, incidentally, that the public will become a little more aware of the need for fire prevention to save not only human life but the great annual losses the country sustains from fire each year.

Mr. Hale

I welcome this new Clause. I also welcome the form in which it has been drafted. It has not been limited by the draftsmen to a restrictive interpretation. But what worries me now—and it may be that I have misunderstood, is the Amendment in page 18, line 27, which adds a new subsection (12) to Clause 25 and reads: (12) Subsection (2) of section (Provision of means of escape in case of fire) of this Act shall have effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that. That is not a very elegant expression. I think it reasonably easy to understand what it is intended to mean, however. It means that subsection (2) of the new Clause shall have effect for the purpose of Clause 25 as it does for the purpose of the new Clause.

There is another Amendment which calls upon us to delete subsection (2) of Clause 25, but if we are to delete subsection (2) of Clause 25 and shove in subsection (2) of the new Clause, I find myself in some difficulty. This new subsection (2) is to be a complete new provision, in which case, I can understand it. But in that case it will not be subsection (12) but subsection (11). This may be normal Parliamentary procedure, but it is all highly confusing when we discuss all these matters together. Is it then the situation that the new Clause to be a new Clause should become Clause "something or other" of the Bill, and subsection (2) of the old Clause is omitted? The addition that we are making of subsection (12) to the new Clause will become subsection (11), in which case we have to consider the words of the new Clause in isolation and not as clarifying, except where expressly stated, the provisions of the old Clause.

6.0 p.m.

The Minister looks puzzled, but surely this is true? We are taking out subsection (2) which is subject to the various qualifications contained in subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10) and (11) of Clause 25, and shoving in a new Clause, so there is nothing in subsections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) of Clause 25 which are drawn so as to qualify, except under certain Amendments that we are discussing.

Is the Minister satisfied that when he has done all this—pulled out subsection (2), bunged in subsection (12), called it subsection (11), added a new Clause—the qualifying conditions will continue to operate in the way that they did when the Bill was drafted?

Mr. Whitelaw

I am so satisfied. Perhaps I might make two points in reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). He was worried about penalties. The answer is that the general penalty under Clause 54 will apply to uncertificated premises. Bingo halls are places of entertainment, and therefore do not come within the Clause.

Mr. Marsh

I cannot help wondering whether the new Clause is really of as much value as it appears to be. All that happens is that the original proposals remain completely unchanged in relation to certification, but the Minister expresses a desire that people shall be able to get out of buildings into which they have gone, that there shall be some means of escape from buildings, but there is no obligation for any employer or owner of such premises to obtain any certification.

The argument which was made in Committee, and which is as strong now as it was then, is that if we are certifying any premises it seems unreasonable to draw a dividing line. It is not difficult to certify premises as having escape facilities. If they have them, it should be easy to get a certificate, but under the Bill as amended, what will happen is that in respect of a group of employees over a certain number an employer will have to obtain a certificate, while no certificate will be required in respect of a building in which there are people below that number undergoing exactly the same fire risks.

I should have thought that there were two issues. First, whether we could cut down the number of people which the Minister has decided must be in a building before it becomes eligible for a certificate. Secondly, where persons are employed other than on the ground floor of a building, that building should be certified as having escape methods for those people to get out of the building.

I do not want to be ungracious, but I cannot see that the Minister has given us very much in this new Clause. Surely any employer is under an obligation to ensure that his people can get out of the building? If the only way in which this can be implemented is by the inspector insisting that it be implemented, and if the inspector has to see the building anyhow and pronounce on whether or not the precautions are satisfactory, there is no reason why he cannot give a certificate at the same time.

On what grounds has the Minister ignored the argument which was put forward that where persons are employed in a building other than on the ground floor it is not unreasonable for the owner of that building, or the occupier, to have a fire certificate showing that there are means of escape? If there is a fire in a building and there is a tragedy, this new Clause might be of some help in establishing liability in common law, but I cannot see that it will do very much to ensure that there are methods of escape.

Mr. Whitelaw

We had a considerable argument on this point in Committee upstairs, and I think that this was one of the rare occasions on which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) was not able to be with us.

I argued this on two points. I separated the general question of means of escape from certification, and, on the question of certification, I argued that it was difficult to know exactly where to draw the line with regard to numbers. We drew the line where we did because we wished to concentrate the activities of the inspectors on the certification procedure, which is a considerable administrative problem, to those premises where the fire risks were greatest. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish me to go over the arguments, but I hold very much to those which I deployed at that time.

Question put and agreed to.

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