§
Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 11, line 17, at end insert:
or consists of premises of any other description prescribed for the purposes of this subsection".
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples)I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)I suggest that it will be convenient if we also take Lords Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
§ Mr. SharplesThese Amendments were moved in another place by Lord Crowther and were accepted by the Government spokesman. They make considerable improvements to the drafting of Clause 8.
§ Clause 8(1) of the Bill, as originally drafted, empowered the fire authority to inspect premises covered by a current fire certificate, and the building in which they were contained, for the purpose of ensuring that the means of escape had not become inadequate by reason of a change of conditions. In the case of dwellings, 24 hours' notice had to be given before the power of entry could be exercised of right: in all other cases, the only condition attaching to the inspection was that it had to be at a reasonable time.
§ It was pointed out in another place that there could well be cases where a room or rooms in the various types of residential establishments covered by the Bill—hotels, boarding-houses, residential clubs and the like—could constitute the occupier's home. It was not suggested that a hotel bedroom occupied for a few nights could be so regarded, but there were often permanent residents who regarded their rooms as their home and kept their belongings there. It was considered that the privacy of such residents 524 should be respected in much the same way as if they were occupying a dwelling.
§ It was in order to meet this point that the Amendments were moved in another place. So far as I know from the information that I have, there is no record of a fire inspector abusing his powers in a way that might be suggested.
§ The effect of the Amendments is to give the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulations, which will be subject to the negative Resolution procedure, which particular premises or parts of premises, in addition to dwellings, shall be deemed to require 24 hours' notice before entry can be made as of right. This will mean that when we come to consult, say, the hotel industry about the application of the Bill to hotels, we can consider whether regulations are needed specifying that bedrooms, except in defined circumstances—for example, when they form part of the means of escape specified in the fire certificate—shall be subject to this proviso. This is a flexible provision, and the advantage is that the requirement for a particular occupancy can be precisely defined.
§ I should add that these Amendments relate to inspections under Clause 8 in connection with changes in conditions: there is a similar proposal in subsection (5) of the new Clause 19 dealing with the general powers of inspectors, which we shall be discussing later.
§ Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South)As the Minister of State has said, these are paving Amendments to the new Clause 19. We shall therefore raise the one or two points we have when we reach that Clause.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 11, line 23, leave out "occupier proposes".
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI suggest that it will be convenient if we also take Lords Amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithThis is to meet a point raised in Committee in the other place and clarifies the question of the responsibility laid on the occupier in relation to certain premises. I could explain the matter in detail if that is the wish of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I think they will realise that this is a helpful provision. If they are prepared to accept it, I would recommend it to the House.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesI am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, but could he say a brief word about Amendment No. 9 which includes the phrase
proposes to begin to keep explosive or highly flammable materials"?
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithUnder subsections (2)(a) and (b) we have left the obligation upon the occupier to give notice to the fire authority if it is proposed to make any changes. We believe that changes of the kind we envisage under subsection (2)(c) are very different, because the occupier of the certified premises would not necessarily know if some-one else in the same building were to begin storing large quantities of inflammable materials. The risk to the means of escape from certified premises could well be considerable. That is why we propose that the duty to notify this kind of change should rest not only on the occupier—where he is responsible—but also on any other occupier in the same building who has accepted contingent responsibilities under the fire certificate by virtue of Clause 6(5). Such a person, too, will now be under a duty to inform the fire authority direct of any change of the kind envisaged in subsection (2)(c) that he makes in his own part of the relevant building.
§ Mr. Brynmor John (Pontypridd)Is that the limit of the change envisaged by the use of the impersonal "it is proposed" in subsections (a) and (b) instead of "the occupier proposes"? It seems to open up a wider field of people proposing to do these things. I take it that the hon. Gentleman now means the people he has already described.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithYes.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.