POWERS OF INSPECTORS (Hansard, 10 March 1971)

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 26, line 31, leave out from beginning to second 'any' in line 32 and insert: 'paragraph (b) above in connection with'. Clause 19(1,d) empowers an inspector for the purpose of any examination or inquiry under Clause 19(1) to require any person found on premises to answer such questions as he may put to him and to sign a declaration as to the truth of the answers given. As was said in Committee, this provision is modelled on Section 53(1,d) of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963.
517 It was pointed out in Committee by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Brynmor Jones) that he wished to define the classes of persons who could be questioned. On that occasion, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that the drafting was wide enough, for example, for guests in a hotel to find themselves being questioned. In Committee, we agreed to look further at this point, and, on that basis, the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment.
The Amendments which I now propose restrict the persons who may be required to answer the inspector's inquiries to the owner, the occupier and a person either employed to work in the premises or having responsibilities in relation thereto. This formula is similar to that contained in Clause 19(1,f).
Persons employed would cover hotel staff, for example. A person having responsibility but not being employed to work in the premises might be a person having an office in a building from which he managed the building but who was not employed to work in any of the premises which required a fire certificate.
I hope that that meets the principle of the point that the hon. Gentleman made and that, at the same time, we have made it clear exactly to whom a request for information may be made.

§ Mr. John
Again I thank the Under-Secretary. What concerned us was not only the wide drafting of the subsection but the fact that in a later Clause the onus would have been put on the person refusing to sign a declaration to prove good reason for not doing so, so that the onus of proof before a court would have been on him when he might have been a far more casual person on those premises than a guest in a hotel and yet would have had to undergo the trouble of proving his ability not to have to sign the declaration. This Amendment meets our point in full, and I welcome it.

§ Mr. Michael Cocks (Bristol, South)
I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 27, line 31, leave out 'if so required'.
Perhaps it will be convenient to discuss with it Amendment No. 17, in line 34, after 'premises', insert 'or any person whom he may have cause to question'.
If these Amendments are accepted, instead of the Act reading, An inspector shall, if so required when visiting any premises in the exercise of powers conferred by this section, produce to the occupier of the premises some duly authenticated document showing his authority", it will be an obligation on him to do so to anyone whom he wishes to question.
This change of emphasis should be considered now. Very many people gain access to premises and private homes nowadays for various reasons and with proper authority. Members of the public are told that in cases of doubt about someone's identity they should ask him for his authorisation. Unfortunately this is becoming increasingly necessary. There are many cases now of people obtaining access to premises for dishonest purposes by posing as having authority from some public body.
It is possible to imagine circumstances, especially in the case of an inspector with the functions set out in this Clause, where an impostor gains access to premises and obtains a great deal of valuable knowledge of the inside layout. He may even make representations that certain security arrangements are a bar to safe escape and, as a temporary expedient, claim to have them removed or altered, thus paving the way for a carefully planned crime later on.
If these Amendments are accepted, they may result in the first of many such changes in our law whereby the onus is no longer on the person being interviewed to ask for authorisation but upon the person who claims to represent some authority.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
I accept the spirit in which the Amendment is moved and what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do. The mere fact that this form of words has been used in previous legislation—for example, the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963—is by no 519 means an excuse for continuing it. I accept that in principle. I would not like it to be thought that my reason for opposing what the hon. Gentleman has said is the mere existence of a precedent. We need to look at precedents to see whether they are good before deciding to allow them to continue. While it is true that this form of words has been used before, there may be a time when we should cease to use it.
The effect of the Amendment would make it completely obligatory on an inspector always to produce a document of authorisation whenever he visited premises in the exercise of his powers under the Bill. I can appreciate the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman envisages. A lot of people are subjected to many inquiries, and I can see why the hon. Gentleman believes that it is necessary, for security and other reasons, to produce a document of identity on every occasion. However, I am afraid that I have to tell him that I regard this as a somewhat unnecessarily onerous requirement to lay on a person carrying out inspections for a fire authority, though I couch my answer in practical terms, saying that this is what we believe will achieve the best in practice and what is necessary in practice.
We feel that in the period of consultation and inspection which will obviously take place before the issue of a fire certificate and subsequently in the course of re-inspections, an inspector is almost certain to pay a number of visits to the premises concerned. In the course of those visits, he will become well known to the management and staff and those with whom he has to deal on the premises. In those circumstances, we believe that there would be no need for the inspector to offer proof of his identity on every occasion.
We accept that it is right that an inspector should produce his identification if he is asked for it. We are certain that an inspector normally visiting for the first time or meeting new occupiers would do so in order to make his credentials completely clear. But we feel that it is unnecessary that an inspector should be required to do so on each visit, which is what this Amendment requires.

§ Mr. John
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the classes of premises 520 which are now to be visited are less well supervised than offices, shops and railway premises. Even if he cannot accept the Amendment, will he arrange publicity to those who occupy these premises and are likely to be visited that it is in their interests to demand production of a warrant on the initial occasion? An inspector may visit many times, but a pseudo-inspector need only visit once in order to gain the access that he wants.

§ Mr. Buchanan-Smith
The hon. Gentleman has a very sensible point. I certainly give the assurance that, in the event of not accepting the Amendment—I cannot recommend the House to accept it—administratively we should do this. We all know perhaps of pseudo meter-readers. In these cases the householder has the right to ask for identification. Older people were brought up in an age which was not perhaps so much subjected to confidence tricksters of one kind or another in these situations. But many people in the types of commercial premises about which we are talking know that they have the right to ask for identification. This is no reason for not having publicity or otherwise giving instructions at the time that people have the right to ask the identity of any person who might come. We will do what we can administratively to make occupiers of premises understand what their rights are.
Many people who have experience of the fire service realise that most inspectors would wear uniform. However, this is not a complete answer, because there are certain shops where people can buy similar-looking uniforms which in some sections of the community are regarded as quite fashionable wear. This might confuse some people in certain circumstances. However, it is worth bearing in mind that people see firemen in their own areas and should accustom themselves to the type of uniform being worn. This would be an added protection.
I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has moved the Amend-However, I cannot recommend the House to accept it. In view of the assurance which I have given about the way that this matter will be administered, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Michael Cocks
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. We can, as the hon. Gentleman said, come back to the matter later. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.