FIRE (ISLINGTON) (Hansard, 11 November 1974)

§ Mr. George Cunningham (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the fire at a hostel in Liverpool Road, Islington on 9th November in which eight persons died, and the lessons it holds for the operation of the Fire Precautions Act.

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins)
A serious fire occurred at 112–114 Liverpool Road, Islington, at about 1.30 on Sunday morning. The premises are used as sleeping accommodation for road transport drivers. The premises consist of two storeys above ground floor shops, and include a basement, used partly for sleeping accommodation and partly to store mattresses. The fire is believed to have started in this store. Of about 20 persons on the premises, five died in the fire and three others were found to be dead on arrival at hospital. I would like to express my deep sympathy with those who have been bereaved by this appalling tragedy.
It was with the object of preventing accidents of this kind that the Fire Precautions Act 1971 was passed and the first designation order under the Act made applicable to hotels and boarding houses. I understand that the occupier of these premises applied for a fire certificate in July. Although the Greater London Council regarded them as outside the scope of that order, it subsequently concluded that they were a hotel. Plans 30 were called for in October as a preliminary to inspection.
The fire authority is holding an urgent investigation as to the cause of the fire. In the meantime I am considering what other action might be taken, but I would certainly again urge all hotel and boarding house keepers who have not applied for a fire certificate to do so at once.

§ Mr. Cunningham
May I express my sympathy to the relatives of those who died in this fire and my thanks to the firemen, the police and, not least, the local residents who were responsible for saving some lives which would otherwise have been lost?
Is the Home Secretary aware that this hostel would not have been operating as such if central Government had not overruled the refusal of Islington Borough Council of planning permission for the hostel, although I stress that the refusal was not based upon fire risk or anything to do with precautions?
Will the Home Secretary tell us what action might be taken, given the shortage of staff in the GLC for this purpose, to speed up the inspection of hotel and hostel accommodation in London so that there is no repetition of this tragedy.

§ Mr. Jenkins
I am sure that we all agree with my hon. Friend's expressions of sympathy and echo his thanks to the services concerned.
Secondly, I was not aware that central Government had overruled the local authority, but I will look into that. I note that my hon. Friend says that it was not on account of any fire risk.
Thirdly, on the speeding up of inspection and matters relating to fire precautions, there are two issues. The occupier applied for a fire certificate in July. There is possible ambiguity about the scope of the order laid in 1972. I propose to look into that to see whether the ambiguity can be removed. That may be one of the main lessons to be drawn. The earlier that people who feel that they are in the position of being hotel or boarding house keepers apply for certificates, the better the chance of dealing with the matter as expeditiously as possible. I do not think that anyone can feel wholly satisfied with this situation. I do not myself, and I intend to look into it as early as possible.

§ Mr. Lane
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition join in expressing sympathy with the families of the men who died and were injured and also in paying tribute to the fire service, which perhaps does not receive public praise as often as it should.
May I ask about the progress of the Fire Precaution Act, to which he and his hon. Friend referred, and which very much concerned us in Government? We agree with him that there are difficulties. The Home Secretary will have seen the rather disturbing figures in the recent annual report of the Chief Inspector of the Fire Service about the rate of progress. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we support him in any review he makes which will result in the Act being applied more quickly?
In doing this will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind two possibilities? The first is to persuade the new fire authorities which have been in existence for six months to give this work high priority. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to make sure that the number of firms engaged in fire precautions work goes on increasing at the fastest possible rate?

§ Mr. Jenkins
I strongly reiterate what the hon. Gentleman said about paying tribute to the fire service. It is sometimes one of the more neglected of our public services. I am glad he said that. It very much represents my own view.
As to the implementation of the 1971 Act, I notice that within the GLC area, with which we are primarily concerned here, applications relating to 1,489 premises have been received, and 1,475 premises have been surveyed. Although 100 per cent. would be desirable, that is a satisfactory proportion. The number of fire certificates issued is 218, and that might well be regarded as a less satisfactory proportion. In many cases constructional work is required before the certificates can be issued. What these figures point to is that, save exceptionally, the delay is not in inspecting premises for which applications have been received. It may be that applications do not come in soon enough, and that there is too great a delay in carrying out the necessary construction work to enable a certificate to be issued. I will pursue these matters.

§ Mr. Beith
Does the Home Secretary agree that the appalling loss of life vindicates the importance attached to the regulations? Does he accept that many hotel keepers are desperate to get this work completed but face difficulty in getting planning applications processed for the necessary alterations and sometimes in getting mortgage finance for the work involved? Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to assist the many hotel keepers who are desperate to avoid situations of this kind?

§ Mr. Jenkins
There is an obligation on everyone concerned, including hotel keepers, but there are financial difficulties. There is provision under the Fire Precautions (Loans) Act for local authorities to make loans, and the Government have recently extended the provision for tax relief on expenditure on fire precautions which is necessitated by the 1971 Act. There has been progress here, but I will certainly keep the matter under review.

§ Mr. Adley
Is the Home Secretary aware that all hon. Members will wish to express sympathy with the relatives of those who suffered this tragic loss of life? The hon. Gentleman referred to the dubiety whether the premises fitted the description of a hotel, and many people will be grateful to him for taking up that point.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many boarding house and guest house keepers are unable to shoulder the financial burden of complying with the Fire Precautions Act, and that all of us in the House have a part to play in the way in which when the 1971 Act went through we perhaps failed to recognise the problems of very small operators? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has had several meetings with the parliamentary Tourism Committee, and give serious consideration to making available either Government low-interest loans or, if necessary, grants for the people who are in a small way of business, so that tragedies of this nature may not occur again?

§ Mr. Jenkins
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. I dealt to some extent with the latter part of his question in replying to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It will 33 not be necessary to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to what he said. She has heard it and will take notice of it in seeing whether there is anything we can reasonably do, beyond the changes which have already been made. to give some financial help in this respect.

§ Mr. Michael Morris
May I add my expression of sympathy to those who have suffered loss and indeed to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). May I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, concern was expressed as far back as 1970–71 about fire precautions in this hostel? The worrying feature about this hostel and others is that local authorities know that there are a number of establishments of this nature which are more of a fire risk than others. What concerns me is that it has taken almost three years for this hostel to apply for a certificate, and that there must be many others which are as big a risk and which have not yet come forward.

§ Mr. Jenkins
I know the hon. Gentleman's close local government knowledge on this issue and take into account what he said. It was not until July that the certificate was applied for, and this underlines the importance of those concerned 34 coming forward as early as possible to apply for certificates if they are covered by the terms of the order. If there is any doubt, let us try to make the order clear.

§ Mr. Robin F. Cook
Will the Home Secretary also bear in mind that there is a great shortage throughout the country of hostel accommodation for single men and that undoubtedly many hostels are inadequate in their fire precautions? Since many of these hostels are non-profit-making and cannot afford to bring nineteenth-century buildings to twentieth-century fire standards, will my right hon. Friend look at this aspect when he reviews the grant arrangements to bring properties up to fire precaution standards?

§ Mr. Jenkins
Yes, I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. There is provision for local authorities to make loans, and there is also provision for tax relief. However, if the organisation is non-profit-making, the provision as to tax relief does not bite.