POWERS OF INSPECTORS

HC Deb 26 May 1971 vol 818 cc527-35

Lords Amendment: No. 14, to leave out Clause 19 and insert the following new Clause: 19.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, any of the following persons (in this section referred to as "inspectors") namely an inspector appointed under section 18 of this Act and a fire inspector, may do anything necessary for the purpose of carrying this Act and regulations thereunder into effect and, in particular, shall, so far as may be necessary for that purpose, have power to do at any reasonable time any of the following things, namely—

1. (a) to enter any such premises as are mentioned in subsection (2) below, and to inspect the whole or any part thereof and anything therein;
2. (b) to make such inquiry as may be necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (3) below;
3. (c) to require the production of, and to inspect, any fire certificate in force with respect to any premises or any copy of any such certificate;
4. (d) to require any person having responsibilities in relation to any such premises as are referred to in paragraph (a) above (whether or not the owner or occupier of the premises or a person employed to work therein) to give him such facilities and assistance with respect to any matters or things to which the responsibilities of that person extend as are necessary for the purpose of enabling the inspector to exercise any of the powers conferred on him by this subsection.

(2) The premises referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are the following, namely—

1. (a) any premises requiring a fire certificate or to which any regulations made under section 12 of this Act apply;
2. (b) any premises such as are mentioned in section 10(l)(a) of this Act;
3. (c) any premises to which section 3 of this Act for the time being applies;
4. (d) any premises not falling within any of the foregoing paragraphs which form part of a building comprising any premises so falling; and
5. (e) any premises which the inspector has reasonable cause to believe to be premises falling within any of the foregoing paragraphs.

(3) The purposes referred to in subsection (1)(6) above are the following, namely—

1. (a) to ascertain, as regards any premises, whether they fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) above;
2. (b) to identify the owner or occupier of any premises falling within any of those paragraphs;
528
3. (c) to ascertain whether, in the case of any premises to which section 3 of this Act for the time being applies, any person has the overall management of the building constituting or comprising the premises and, if so, to identify that person;
4. (d) to ascertain, as regards any premises falling within any of the said paragraphs (a) to (d), whether the provisions of this Act and regulations made under section 12 thereof are complied with, and, where a fire certificate is in force in respect of any such premises, whether the requirements imposed by the certificate are complied with.

(4) 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. (5) In the case of premises used as a dwelling or premises of any other description prescribed for the purposes of this subsection, no power of entry conferred by subsection (1) above shall be exercised as of right unless twenty-four hours' notice has been given to the occupier; and for the purposes of this subsection a description of premises may be framed in any of the ways mentioned in section 1(4) of this Act. (6) A person who—

1. (a) intentionally obstructs an inspector in the exercise or performance of his powers or duties under this Act; or
2. (b) without reasonable excuse fails to comply with any requirement imposed by an inspector under subsection (l)(d) above,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.

Mr. Sharples

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It will be convenient to consider, with this Amendment, Lords Amendments No. 15, and 16.

Lords Amendment read a Second time..

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in the last line, to leave out '£50' and insert '£250'.

Mr. Sharples

The House will recall that we had a considerable discussion in Committee on Clause 19. In the other place, Lord Crowther and Lord Foot both felt that the powers in the Clause went further than was strictly necessary. They felt that the powers of inspectors, as drafted, seemed to amount to an unwarrantable invasion of privacy in certain cases, and that the arrangements for interrogating staff and other persons by inspectors under the Clause as drafted seemed to be unnecessarily intimidating, especially if a police constable were present. Specific powers were taken in the Clause for a police constable to be present with the inspector if that were required.

As originally drafted, the Clause was based upon the precedent of Section 53 of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1962. No complaints had arisen about its operation, and it was felt that one could rely on the experience and discretion of the fire service in exercising its powers. The new Clause still gives the inspector the powers that he needs, while removing those features of the original powers to which objection was made. Accordingly, the Government spokesman in another place accepted the Clause on behalf of the Government. In view of Lord Crowther's interest in the matter, assistance was given to him by the Home Office in the drafting of the Clause.

The redesigned Clause omits those parts of the original Clause which dealt with the formal interrogation procedure and the provision relating to the presence of a police constable. It also provides, as do the Amendments which we have discussed under Clause 8, for premises other than dwellings to be brought as necessary, by means of regulations, within the rule that 24 hours' notice has to be given before the power of entry to such premises is exercised as of right.

As to the formal interrogation procedure, the inspector still has power to make all necessary inquiries, even though a procedure is not prescribed. But, in practice, an inspector's inquiries are normally conducted in a spirit of friendliness and co-operation, and in the rare cases where someone wished to be obstructive, the chances are that, whether or not the formal interrogation procedure existed, such a person would persist in his obstinacy. In such a case, the new Clause provides ample grounds for proceedings by virtue of subsection (6). The other consideration is that the purpose of the interrogation procedure in the original Clause was to enable the inspector to arrive at the truth. The Amendment to Clause 22 takes care of this point by adding to paragraph (c) the offence of wilfully giving false information in reply to an inspector's inquiries.

10.45 p.m.

It is only in rare cases that the inspector would exercise the power to take a police constable with him, but it must be admitted that in serious cases of obstruction the presence of a police officer might not be conclusive. If the owner of a shady night club, say, still refused to admit the inspector, albeit accompanied by a constable, then neither would have power to force his way in, and other means of enforcing the law would still have to be found. Little or nothing is lost, therefore, by dispensing with this provision. Under Clause 19 this power might well be otiose.

In the context of the wide range of safety precautions which the fire authority can impose under the Bill, we are satisfied that the proposed modifications of the original Clause 19 will make no material difference in practice to the fire service in its enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. There is a consequential Amendment to Clause 20.

One matter which I think I should mention in view of the interest of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in the original Clause is that I accepted an Amendment moved by him on a point which he raised. I think it fair to point out that the adoption of the new Clause will have the effect of removing the Amendment made to the present subsection (1) (d) on Report stage. This Amendment was designed, rightly, to restrict the classes of persons who could be interrogated. Those restrictions are no longer required in the absence of the formal interrogation procedure itself.

This new Clause is regarded by the Government as wholly without prejudice to the powers of inspectors conferred by the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963, and the Factories Act, 1961. The differences are acceptable, however, because the Bill is concerned in part with private dwellings, a consideration which does not arise in connection with those two Acts.

The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) seeks to increase the penalty referred to in the Lords Amendment for withholding information from an inspector from £50 to £250. The penalty which the hon. Member proposes is considerably more than is contained in equivalent legislation for offences of the same kind. Substantial offences under the Bill are concerned with contravening requirements of the fire certificate or using premises without obtaining one. If any obstruction of an inspector led to such an offence, the penalties for that substantial offence would apply.

I remind the House that there is a maximum fine of £400 on summary conviction and an unlimited fine and /or imprisonment for up to two years on conviction on indictment. The Lords Amendment to Clause 22(l)(c) introduces the offence of deliberately giving false information to an inspector. This is a necessary consequence of removing the formal interrogation procedure from this Clause. The penalty of a fine of £400 for this offence is for a substantial offence, not of withholding information but of wilfully giving false information. The reason for the higher penalty is that deliberately false information could mislead an inspector into thinking that the means of escape were adequate in a material particular when they were not. The penalty in the Bill as it stands is probably the correct penalty in relation to the particular offence under Clause 19 having regard to equivalent penalties in other legislation and also the limited nature of the offences covered by this provision.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

Our reason for tabling an Amendment on this point in Committee was that we thought that many of the fines in the Bill were too low. Changes were made. The hon. Gentleman has told us why because of the different arrangements under the law, culminating in indictment, it is not necessary to raise the fines here. This is not the sort of subject for a large-scale political argument. It is a matter of balance, and I know that he will have been advised.

He will recall that in the Immigration Bill now being considered in Committee the point was made—yesterday or today I forget when because of the length of the sitting—that if we put too high a fine in the court of summary jurisdiction it leads to magistrates feeling rather tender because they think the sum is too high. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep an eye on these important matters, and I know that the fire services will.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) seems to be in the wrong House. It seems that we get further when we introduce Amendments in another place. This has arisen because of the interest taken in this by Lord Crowther, who has an interest in hotels. As he said, he had on his mind, maybe on his conscience, quite properly, the terrible fire at Saffron Waiden, at one of his hotels. I know from the quality of that group of hotels that this is something that would concern him. It was because of his feelings and consequent interest that this came up in another place.

In what fundamental way does new Clause 19 alter the question of fire precautions and inspections in hotels? Is it a great change or a marginal one? Why was it thought necessary to have a completely new Clause? There is widespread interest in the question of fire safety in new hotels. The Minister of State and I have a vested interest as non-lawyers. It would be interesting to know the answer.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)

The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) referred to the fire at Saffron Waiden. A short time ago there was a fire in Norfolk Park. Had the Bill been enacted, would the damage that was caused to life in that fire have been prevented?

Mr. John

In answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), no undertaking was given by the Government in Committee for the immediate implementation of the Bill. So there would be two prerequisites: first, the passing of the Bill into law, and, secondly, its implementation by the Government, and the one does not necessarily follow on the other.

I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that the Government moved slowly, like an avalanche at first, and then collapsed completely when the Clause was discussed in another place.

My first concern is with the classes of people who can be interrogated by the fire inspectors, and not necessarily with the powers of the fire inspectors. We are dealing here with matters of life and death. The avoidance of fire precautions can lead to avoidable death, and, therefore, fire inspectors should have a reasonable amount of power. Provided the people whom fire inspectors could question were sufficiently drawn, I was content with the original Clause. I read with some concern in paragraph (d) of the Amendment that the fire inspectors have power: to require any person having responsibilities in relation to any such premises … (whether or not the owner or occupier of the premises or a person employed to work therein) … Although this appears to reproduce the Government Amendment on Report, it is vaguer, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that.

I appreciate the point made in another place about the intimidation of the police constable. It is not a view which is normally accepted in enacting legislation designed to deter, but I accept that the Government were willing to concede that point.

In replying to the debates on Clause 19 the Minister said that inspectors would normally be drawn from fire brigades. To rob them of the presence of a police constable will put a much higher onus upon them, and place them in greater difficulty. They will have to be skilled not only in fire precautions but in matters of evidence and interrogation techniques which the presence of a police constable might avert. In the original Clause, both as it appeared before the Committee and after amendment on Report, the question of whether a person without reasonable excuse failed to comply with any requirement was subject to the proviso that the onus of proof that he had reasonable excuse lay upon him. That has been removed, and I wonder why. Provided we restrict the class of people who can be interrogated, I would not want to see the fire authorities—the inspectors—having themselves to discharge the onus of proof. I think that a person who fails to comply with any of the inspector's directions should have the onus of proof as to the reasonableness of his excuse placed upon him.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at these matters carefully because otherwise he is going to have the charter for evasion which we spoke about on other Clauses and which we all want to avoid. We do not want this Bill to be evaded; we want its provisions to be implemented both in the spirit and in the letter. I suppose it is now too late to alter the Amendment but I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear these matters in mind in order to secure the proper working of the Bill.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Sharples

I assure the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) that I take very seriously the points he has made. The House respects the considerable amount of knowledge he has of this subject and the great interest he took in our earlier discussions on Clause 19.

The Amendment was moved by a backbench peer in another place, and it is one which all of us, I am sure, agree with, in that the powers of the inspector, particularly when dealing with accommodation by private persons—whether it be hotel or private accommodation or any other kind—should be all that is necessary for him to carry out his duties but should not be greater or more formal or more intimidating than strictly necessary. It was with that in view that the Amendment was drafted, with assistance from the Home Office.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether or not the fire inspector would be concerned with matters of evidence. Any prosecution would, of course, be undertaken by the legal staff of the fire authority. Under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, the onus of proof already rests with the defendant. That is why it was not considered necessary to write it into this Clause as redrafted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) referred to the recent fire in London. My understanding is that the coroner has yet to complete his inquiries, and I think, therefore, that it would be inappropriate for me to make any specific comment about it. It would be in order to say, however, that premises of this kind in inner London are controlled at present as to means of escape by the London Buildings (Amendment) Act, 1939. The difference between the provisions of the existing legislation and the Bill is that the Bill is more comprehensive because it covers not only means of escape but matters such as alarms, the training of staff, the marking of escape routes and the obligation to inform the fire authorities of any material changes in or to the premises. Present legislation excludes a good many hotels from control, but my hon. Friend is right that the speed at which we bring these provisions into force in relation to hotels and similar premises depends upon the orders being made.

It is right, even after the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and I have been without rest for a considerable time, that, in view of recent events, we should give some urgency to this Measure. The hon. Member asked the important question: what fundamental difference does this make both to fire precautions and to the powers of inspectors? The answer is that it does not in any way weaken the fire precautions which can be required under the Bill and it does not weaken the powers of the inspectors to carry out the duties which we consider to be essential and which Parliament lays upon them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Merlyn Rees

Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.