POWERS OF ENTRY (Hansard, 9 July 1982)

§ Mr. Peter Lloyd
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 21.

§ Mr. Lloyd
The amendments are all of a technical and drafting nature and do not raise any issues of substance. Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 15, 19, 20 and 21 correct an anomaly concerning the fire authority in relation to exhibitions to which sections 7(2) and (3) of the 1909 Act apply.
The exhibitions concerned are those that are held occasionally or in moveable buildings or structures. By virtue of the provisions of clause 5, the fire authority would have power to inspect such premises to ensure that they comply with fire safety requirements. As matters stand, while the local authority and the police have to be notified in advance of such exhibitions, there is no requirement to inform the fire authority. Clearly that is an omission that we wish to correct, which is what the amendments seek to do.
Amendments Nos. 12, 14, 16 and 17 are again drafting amendments, the purpose of which is to move the definition of "fire authority" to a more convenient and appropriate place in the Bill.
Amendment No. 13 adds a definition of "chief officer of police" to the other definitions in clause 9.
Finally, amendment No. 18 makes it clear that a local authority may issue licences only in respect of premises in its own area.

§ Mr. Proctor
I shall not delay the House too long but I wish to raise one or two points. The amendments relate to safety aspects with particular reference to fire. The 1909 and 1952 Acts were largely concerned, and rightly so, with the hazards of film, and a complicated area of law has been established on safety. Since then, there have been technical developments resulting in safety film which is not self-combustible and melts under the influence of flame and heat. I welcome the revisions made by the Lords amendments. I hope when my hon. Friend replies he will say something about the safety of film and cinemas.
The safety regulations for cinemas made in 1955 ranged over a wide area. I understand that they are currently being revised and that their restructuring will be soon complete. When will the revised regulations come to the House? They are needed as a result of the new technology, which is one of the motive forces behind the introduction of the Bill and the advent of the multiple auditorium cinemas that have been established successfully in Britain.
As I understand the amendment to clause 5, the definition of a police officer will be inserted after line 27 of clause 9. There will then be a definition of "exempted exhibition", followed by a definition of a fire officer at the end of line 30 and before line 31. Is there a reason for separating the fire officer and police officer in the list of definitions in clause 9(1)?
Perhaps that is just the way the drafting went. It does not seem very logical to me, but perhaps there is a reason for doing it in that way.
580 There are two further small points. On the subject of exhibitions of cinematograph material in "moveable buildings or structures", I wonder whether either the Minister or my hon. Friend knows the extent of such exhibitions. Are they widespread? Are they confined to rural areas—for quite understandable reasons? Are they confined to moving vehicles—a converted bus, or something of that nature, acting as a cinema—as opposed to a moveable building? Would a cinema bus, if such a thing exists, come under "moveable buildings or structures" in Lords amendment No. 19(2)?
On amendment No. 18, I agree that it would be nonsense for one local authority to be able to grant a licence outside its own area. I am glad that that loophole has been blocked. It would have been ridiculous if an operator who wanted to obtain a licence and failed to get it from a strict authority managed to get one in another area where a more lenient view was taken of these matters. I therefore commend Lords amendment No. 18, because it blocks what could have been a serious loophole, and because it could have given rise to bureaucratic difficulties if operators went from one to the next of the 300 local authorities until they finally found one that would grant them a licence.
Finally, some of the matters raised by these amendments are not just technical. The amendments pave the way, as does the Bill, for a consolidation measure. Perhaps at this late stage in our deliberations I could impress on my hon. and learned Friend the Minister the need to consolidate as quickly as possible. Certainly the industry wants consolidation at the earliest possible moment. Those of us who have had to wrestle with my hon. Friend's excellent Bill in its various stages know that we have to refer to both the 1909 and the 1952 Acts. I have mentioned the fire regulations of 1955, and there are other matters, too. Consolidation would mean that everyone could be clear about the law relating to cinematograph exhibitions. If the law is unclear or shrouded in mystery or complexity, it is more likely to be held in disrepute or ignored. I do not ask my hon. and learned Friend for any assurances, but I hope that he will be able to give us good news about progress towards consolidation, to which this Bill is obviously a stepping stone.

§ Mr. Mayhew
May I take up, first, the point about consolidation? I referred to the matter on Second Reading. Certainly, all the legislation on this subject needs to be brought within the confines of one statute, because it is difficult fully to understand the law when one has to hop from one set of regulations to another and from one statute to another. We hope, therefore, to achieve that consolidation as scion as possible. We hope that an early consolidation of the 1909 and 1952 Acts and this Bill, when it is enacted, will be possible.
A number of questions have been raised in the debate. I entirely agree with the promoter when he said that these are drafting and technical amendments. In our view, they are highly desirable, sensible and uncontroversial.
The fire safety regulations are, of course, the Cinematograph (Safety) Regulations of 1955 and their Scottish equivalents, and they are in the course of review. These are matters of technical difficulty, and the resources of the Departments concerned and of the draftsmen's office are not unlimited. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot proceed as fast as we should like. However, we 581 intend to get on as fast as we can, and I hope that it will not be unduly long before we are in a position to update those regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) raised a drafting point, which is a little hard on the consideration of Lords amendments, about the precise order of the definitions of police officers and fire officers. There is an explanation. It relates to the basis on which the drafting is carried out. It is done in alphabetical order, and I think that that is the reason.
The hon. Gentleman asked to what extent moveable buildings are used. I do not have any precise information about the number of exhibitions in moveable buildings, but we believe tht they are pretty infrequent. A cinema bus would probably not be regarded as a moveable building or structure but, if necessary, control could be exercised through the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
I hope that I have answered all the questions that were put to me, and that I have adequately disposed in a short reply of the matters that cause concern.