Lords Sitting of 3 February 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Exporters: Foreign Language Teaching
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to encourage language teaching for those promoting British exports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have taken a number of measures, some with the help of the British Overseas Trade Board, to impress upon exporters how important it is to speak the language of one's customer and to understand the social and economic environment. We have been active in stimulating facilities for foreign language teaching which meet the needs of exporters.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. But does he agree that for the most part foreign languages are still taught in schools as dead languages and little thought is given to students leaving school actually being able to speak a foreign language?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, with minor reservations I agree with my noble friend. It is particularly for this reason that the Department of Education and Science has undertaken a review of the place of foreign languages in the school curriculum. The review is to underline the importance of being able to communicate in a language rather than perhaps learning some of the deeper aspects of it, particularly in languages other than French.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, would it not be better if some of the secondary schools were encouraged to concentrate more on teaching foreign languages rather than some of the more dubious subjects that are at present inflicted upon pupils?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the acceptance of what the noble Lord says right across the House, leaves me with no alternative but to agree with him.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, following my noble friend's reference to dead languages, will the Minister make it clear that there will be no discouragement to the teaching of classical languages, having regard to the fact that a study of Latin and Greek is a useful if not an indispensible adjunct to the speaking of most European languages?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, although my noble friend's question is perhaps a little wide of the original one, and although I have no personal experience of this, again I have only one alternative and that is to agree with him.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the image of the exporter in years past has been pretty grim? It has been a story of a black coat and striped trousers and a brief case stuffed with brochures; of a man spending two days in the Middle East and coming home without any orders. However, the Japanese send out a team, stay for days with plenty of money and use bribery to get to the top and obtain orders. Can the Minister say whether there has been any improvement on our side?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that again is a little bit wide of the original Question. What the noble Lord describes may have been an impression given many years ago, but in particular there has been a great change of attitude by employers towards language skills for employees. There are encouraging signs that exporters are developing greater language skills.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what is needed are not only the learning and teaching of foreign languages but also more substantial backup in terms of personnel and equipment? For example, word processors should be able to cope with French accents. How many word processors in use in this country can produce documents in Japanese, for example? Is this not something that the Government should look at?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the first question. I shall look at the second.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, although it is not possible to have extensive language teaching by conversational methods in schools, is not the system by which written learning is backed-up by exchanges between pupils from British schools and schools abroad for terms or half terms the very best that has lately been devised?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, once again I can only repeat to my noble friend the point I made earlier. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is undertaking a review to establish which is the best way to encourage language teaching particularly in schools and places of higher education so as to meet today's needs.
Lord John-Mackie: Has Esperanto no future, my Lords?
Lord Hunt: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in a number of primary schools a promising start is made in teaching the spoken language at an age when young people easily assimilate it? Is not the weakness between the primary and secondary sectors of education, and is it not a pity that that promising start is not continued?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It is encouraging that a start has been made. It is the purpose of the review to ensure that that start is continued right through.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many schools throughout the United Kingdom would love to do all kinds of things with language laboratories and so on but the difficulty is the lack of finance? Therefore, they can concentrate only on the priorities before them.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, that most certainly is not true. There are adequate funds. It is a question of education authorities devoting those funds to the best advantage. That is called management.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the arrangement of competitions among schools in languages is very helpful? For 15 years in schools in Plymouth the masters and mistresses have given their time to do all the judging free, and it is very helpful because several of the pupils already have found jobs.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Her knowledge of what happens in Plymouth is well known since she was such a distinguished Member of Parliament for the constituency. I am sure she is absolutely right. I am also sure that any stimulus that can be given to young people and older people to encourage their language learning and practice is to be welcomed.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the interests of invisible exports in the much maligned City in most modern banks there is a wide range of languages, including Japanese, Arabic, German, Spanish and Russian, and that that assists them in conducting this kind of business?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, there is only one point on which I disagree with what the noble Lord said. He described the City as much maligned. I do not agree with him. I agree that the City makes a significant contribution to the economy of this country, and the City itself and all its institutions have taken advantage of the techniques available, including language, to improve their position.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether he thinks that we are producing enough teachers of non-European languages?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot answer my noble friend. I simply have no knowledge about the supply of language teachers.

Beaches in Scotland: EC Directive
2.46 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many beaches in Scotland have been notified to the European Community as meeting its standards for bathing.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for local government and the environment in Scotland is today announcing in another place a list of 23 Scottish waters identified as bathing waters in terms of the EC directive. The full list of waters has been placed in the Library and will shortly be sent to the European Commission.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. As the first list comprising 27 bathing beaches included only places in England and Wales, does the Scottish Office deal direct with the European Community in these matters, as the Department of the Environment is not responsible for the environment in Scotland?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, we shall be sending from the Scottish Office details to the European Community.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, what is the effect of nominating a beach? Does it mean it is pure, and is it illegal to go on non-nominated beaches?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it is not illegal to go on a non-nominated beach provided there is no other reason not to go there. But the directive defines bathing water as:
"fresh or sea water where bathing is explicitly authorised or bathing is not prohibited and is traditionally practised by a large number of bathers".
My noble friend will see that the original directive was fairly wide.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree, in view of the lie put about that the water is cold off the beaches of Scotland, that he and other Ministers should bathe there in order to encourage tourists?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was in St. Andrew's last night and I do not recommend the noble Lord to try the water there at the moment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, does my noble friend think that these are suitable places to practise foreign languages?
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, will the Minister accept my congratulations on the fact that the department has now designated 23 Scottish waters? Can he perhaps clear up a point and tell us the difference between "notified" and "designated"? Some of the terms are slightly puzzling. Is he aware of just how serious the problem has become? Since the EC has had the power to designate objectives, we are now possibly seeing ourselves as others see us. Is he aware of how bad some of the beaches are, in particular those of Arran, Rothesay and Largs and others in the Clyde estuary? They can be particularly bad at certain times of the year. Can the noble Lord ask for a report on this? Will he also look at the fact that a relatively enclosed water such as the Clyde requires perhaps different treatment from the North Sea or some of the coastal areas of Europe?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the two-year monitoring programme carried out by river purification boards will be completed at the end of 1987 and a report will be published. Perhaps I could also say to him that the clearance of litter from the beaches is the responsibility of district councils and it behoves individuals not to leave litter and so on lying around.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Frazerburgh beach is included on the list?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, Frazerburgh is included, but I would not recommend the noble Lady to try it at this time of the year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as it seems that up to now no beaches in Scotland have been designated or notified to the European Community, and following what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said about some of the beaches being imperfect, is my noble friend aware that nonetheless there are many clean, sparkling and unpolluted bathing beaches in Scotland which also excel in not being overcrowded?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest
2.48 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many sites of special scientific interest have been notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, how many representations or objections have been made to a proposed notification, and how many of those objections have been successful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I am advised by the Nature Conservancy Council that on 30th November 1986, 2,571 sites had been renotified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. A further 1,024 had been notified for the first time under the 1981 Act. Information about representations or objections submitted before the 1985 amendment Act became operative is not readily available. However since then, 392 SSSIs have been notified and the boundaries of 30 of these have been modified in response to objections or representations.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full reply. Are there any sites which were notified under the 1949 Act and which still remain to be renotified under the 1981 Act? If so, is it a lack of funds on the part of the NCC that is preventing this?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. There are indeed sites which the Nature Conservancy Council will have to consider on the basis of their having been listed under the 1949 Act. They are making good
134
progress in their renotification programme, and most certainly the NCC are not inhibited by lack of funds, which have gone up by 350 per cent. since 1979.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister give us some idea of what is happening to sites of special scientific interest which are awaiting renotification and are on government property, belonging to the Ministry of Defence, the Forestry Commission, MAFF or DAFF? Can he say whether those sites are protected by the fact that they are on government property, and whether the Government will be taking a sensible view even though they have not yet been renotified?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a very detailed question. If the noble Baroness has any particular site in mind, I shall of course respond to that if she gives me notice. The 1949 Act sites are given some protection under the 1949 Act. It was decided in 1979 that this was not enough and that is why we got the 1981 Act. The Government will look at their own sites with great care when there are considerations of development or re-use of those particular sites.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply to the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady David, perhaps I may ask him whether he is aware that, according to my information, as many as 25 per cent. of the original SSSIs in existence at the time of the passage of the 1981 Act have still not been renotified, and that 50 per cent. of the new sites identified by the NCC since 1981 remain to be designated under the terms of that Act. If those figures are correct, it seems to me that there are something like 1,000 unprotected sites waiting to be so designated. Is there really not a case for providing the NCC with the additional resources required to speed up the process, in view of the vulnerability of those sites?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the investigations needed before a site is either notified or renotified have a scientific basis. I have assured the noble Baroness opposite that the Nature Conservancy Council have the money. They have not told the Government that they do not have enough scientists to pursue this particular scheme. Equally, the scientific investigations which are necessary are of themselves very lengthy.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what is the effect of notifying a site? Does that exclude any planning development at all?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the effect of notifying a site is in a sense temporary, in that any operation likely to damage the scientific values of the site which is on a list given to the owner of the site at the time of notification, has to be discussed with the council. Following this a temporary stop notice for four months is put on while agreements can be arrived at.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am very pleased that he said that the NCC have adequate funds for staff? Have they also adequate funds for the management agreements which may have to be drawn up with owners?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords. There has been no problem. In fact, there has never been a case where a management agreement has been unable to be financed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there is any limit on the number of sites? If, for example, there are 1,000 sites of one sort of rare beast, bird or flower, do they then cease to be of special scientific interest?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if there were 1,000 sites of something like the Persian carpet beetle, I suspect that the beetle would not be rare in the first place.

EC Internal Market: Measures
2.55 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many measures relating to the completion of the internal market by 1992 were adopted during the United Kingdom's presidency of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, 44 internal market measures were adopted and another four agreed during the United Kingdom presidency. This represents a substantial acceleration in progress towards completing the internal market. We hope that the momentum now established will be sustained under subsequent presidencies.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that excellent news that he has given us. Perhaps we can speed up the process whereby we get the presidency again quicker than normal. Can the Minister give us some idea of the areas in which progress has been made?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the items cover a wide spectrum. About half were agreed in the Internal Market Council dealing with mutual recognition of national standards for industrial products of particular interest. Perhaps I may tell my noble friend that the consumer credit directive, a regulation with regard to counterfeit goods, a further regulation with regard to hotel fire safety and a directive on good laboratory practice are four that come very readily to mind.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, the Minister has mentioned those 44 measures and the wide spectrum covered. Can he tell the House whether those measures included one for the liberalisation of air transport within the European Community? Specifically can he tell us whether there has been any adoption of the aviation competition regulation under Article 87 of the Treaty of Rome?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am not surprised at the noble Baroness's supplementary
136
question. I can tell her that member states failed to agree on the package of measures intended to liberalise air services, and this was a disappointment. However, it remains one of the United Kingdom's highest priorities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what progress has been made in completing the internal market on services, particuarly financial services?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I regret to have to tell the noble Lord that not as much progress has been made as anticipated, but ECOFIN adopted an important directive in November on the liberalisation of capital movements. I think what lies behind the noble Lord's question is the fact that a genuinely free market in financial services, insurance and so on would give our firms wide and new opportunities to market their services throughout the Community.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. But can he assure us that this is a government priority, because we are told that we are very good at selling services and perhaps not so good in other respects? If that is the case, will the Government make it a priority that we should try to get a free market in services?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords. of course priorities have in themselves priorities. But it remains an important matter for us to pursue through the Community at every opportunity we have.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, may we perhaps know how many measures for the completion of the market are now outstanding?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Not without notice, my Lords. The noble Lord will recall that the White Paper produced by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, as commissioner had some 290 measures. I cannot recall how many of those have been adopted since the White Paper was produced.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, reverting to the question about financial services and particularly insurance, whether it is not a fact that the Single European Act which we recently approved is our best hope, by the introduction of majority voting—which will still be difficult and delayed—of getting freedom in this very important field?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I really have to agree with my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. The Single European Act is an important step towards enabling the United Kingdom to realise more fully the benefits of our membership of the Community, and a greater use of majority voting will, I think, lead to much faster and more effective decision-taking in all areas.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the provision of insurance, other than life assurance services, has been in the form of a draft directive since 1975, and that it has been a

137
government priority to achieve that for the past 10 years? Can the noble Lord inform the House whether Germany and France are still exercising their vetoes against the introduction of' the directive?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I think that the true answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, lies in the fact that the European Court judgments in the non-life insurance test cases became available too late in the presidency to allow us to make progress. We hope to make better progress in the future.

Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHANCELLOR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to exempt from requirement to have fire certificate]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("subsection-) and insert ("subsections").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may be allowed to introduce the first amendment to this very important Bill by saying just a few things about the spirit in which I believe the Committee will want to consider the amendments. In saying that, I obviously include the noble Earl the Minister.
We are in the habit of looking at legislation in regard to fire risk after some national disaster has occurred. As we all pray that national disasters will be few and far between, that means that we do not often get the opportunity of looking at questions of fire safety in some detail. On those occasions, we must see to it that we adopt measures which are sensible in that they do not create unnecessary burdens, but which are also cautious in that they prevent (so far as that is possible) fire risk or allow, if a fire occurs, the saving of as much life and as much exemption from injury as is possible.
It is in that spirit that we from these Benches are moving our amendments. Some of them may be probing amendments. In fact, the first three amendments to which I shall be referring can be so described. I am sure that the Government will respond in the way that one would expect, by seeing whether the Bill can be sensibly amended if one proves the point of an amendment. I do not have to say that if anything is exempt from any political flavour it is a Bill of this kind.
It is in that spirit that I move the first amendment. With the permission of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 at the same time. This is one of those probing amendments to which I have referred. The aim of these amendments is to highlight the problem of multiple occupation of premises. The
138
amendments aim to prevent the exemption of employers using premises in multiple occupation from the requirement to apply for a fire certificate.
I say that this is a probing amendment for this reason. It may very well be that the Government and the Committee will not want to accept an amendment which commands that there should not be an exemption in certain cases. But I am sure that the Committee will want to know the grounds that the Government have in mind for those exemptions. That is the point of these probing amendments.
The consultative document Fire Safety and Safety at Spoils Venues suggested that over 60 per cent. of factory premises currently subject to certification would be liable to exemption from certification by the fire authority. What do the Government have in mind when talking in terms of that 60 per cent.? If the Government, in answer to this amendment, will make their position clear it will help us on these Benches to decide whether these amendments will be carried further at a later stage.
The Government ought to be prepared to say whether or not they have considered the fire risks which are inherent in multiple occupations in general and in the clothing industry in particular. I have received representations, as I imagine have other Members of the Committee, from the tailors' and garment workers' unions, as well as from the fire brigade union. It is important that we should consider what is very much an area of high fire risk—namely, multiple occupation—especially in the trades which I have just mentioned. It is important that we should see what the Government have in mind in regard to the exemption particulars covered by this Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for the spirit in which he moved this amendment and will move those to come on this very important Bill. I wholeheartedly agree with him that what we hope the fire service will retain and what it has succeeded in retaining in the past is the ability to be above party politics. It is far too important a subject to be used as a football and bandied about. From my very limited experience of going round fire brigades, I have been more than impressed by the dedication and skill that firemen, both whole time and retained, give to their work. I think it has been noticeable, particularly in the past cold spell, that firemen have undertaken work which is not traditionally associated with the fire brigade without so much as a murmur and at all hours of the day and night. For that we are extremely grateful.
We are given the opportunity in this Bill of discussing ways in which we hope to prevent a major disaster in the future and perhaps to tie up some of the loose ends which exist at the moment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be the first to agree with me that however hard we may try to predict the future, it has a nasty habit of causing to happen the one thing which, with the best will in the world, we did not foresee. However, I hope that such an occurrence will not happen for a very long time, if at all.
The noble Lord questioned our philosophy concerning Clause 1, which is the central provision by which

139
the system of fire precautions is to be amended. It enables designation orders under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to specify premises for which a fire certificate is required and to specify categories of premises which the fire authority may exempt from the need to have a fire certificate. Indeed, the noble Lord mentioned factories in particular as one of the categories of premises which could be given these certificates. Guidance will be given to fire authorities on the exercise of this power, and it is anticipated that a significant number of low-risk factories, offices and shops could be exempt.
The philosophy behind this is that when we looked at the duties which had to be undertaken we saw that, given modern building methods and modern uses of buildings, a lot of time and trouble was being taken by the fire brigades on what we considered to be unnecessary routine inspections of premises which could quite properly be designated as exempt premises without imperilling life in any way. We sought to relieve those properties by exemption so that we could utilise the valuable resources of the fire brigades to concentrate on the more difficult premises. The noble Lord mentioned in particular premises in multiple occupation. Here again some of those could be exempt properties, because it is the nature of the risk that we are looking at.
It is for the fire authority to consider the particular premises and to determine in the light of all the circumstances of each case whether they represent a low risk and can be properly exempt. That does not necessarily mean that there are no fire precautions in that building; in fact quite the opposite, because the fire authority has to be satisfied that without placing further onerous duties on the owner and on the building people can live and work in that building and yet have the necessary means with which to fight a fire and get away from a fire.
That is the philosophy. We believe it to be the right one. Guidance will be given to the fire authorities and we believe that it can be done safely, without imperilling lives, and that this is a major way in which we can utilise resources better.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the Minister referred to multiple occupation in relation to factories, shops and buildings of that kind. So far there has been no specific reference to the multiple occupation of premises which arises from the homelessness of large numbers of people. Last week I raised this matter and asked the Government what plans they have in this respect. There is squalor and lack of safety in many large premises, occupied sometimes by five to six persons to a room. I hope that as part of the philosophy, and indeed of the practical realities of this Bill, they have in mind that kind of safety in relation to multiple occupation by persons who have been rendered homeless or have no home to go to.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful, to the noble Lord. He has highlighted just one of the areas where by the exemption certificates on safe properties we hope to be able to utilise resources better to get to those properties to which we are not giving the necessary time at the moment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl.
Lord Mishcon: We are setting, I hope, an example, if that is not said too pompously, of how Committee stages of Bills should be dealt with, in that there are short speeches and short replies. I propose only to put one short question after thanking the noble Earl for what he had to say, which I obviously wish to consider. He talked in terms of guidance being given. Can he say when those guidelines are likely to be issued? Will it be before the Bill goes through Parliament in all its stages?
The Earl of Caithness: It would be difficult to say that, because the nature of the Bill might change. But we shall be consulting and I shall be able to write to the noble Lord setting out in more detail exactly when we hope to be able to provide the guidance. It would be wrong to issue guidance on a Bill that has not been approved by Parliament. I am sure that the noble Lord would be the first to realise that. In the meantime we wish to consult in the hope that the Bill will receive a fair wind.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure the noble Earl realises that there is a reverse side to the coin. One may want to amend the Bill because the guidelines are not satisfactory. One may find that it is not necessary to amend it because the guidelines are satisfactory. I hope that he will use his efforts—and I am sure the Committee will agree with me—to ensure that those guidelines are produced as fast as possible and we hope before the Bill finishes its passage through this House. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
("(8) Where a notice of the grant of exemption for any premises includes a statement under subsection (7) above, the fire authority may, by notice served on the occupier of the premises, direct that, as from a date specified in the notice, the statement—

(a) is cancelled; or

(b) is to have effect as varied by the notice;

and, on such a variation the statement shall be treated, so long as the variation remains in force, as if the variation were specified in it.").
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 5 and 31.
This group of government amendments is designed to introduce further flexibility into the arrangements for exempting premises from the requirement to have a fire certificate, which will work to the advantage of both the fire authority, whose interests lies in securing appropriate standards of fire safety, and the occupier, who should not have unnecessary requirements placed upon him.
The Committee will be aware that new Section 5A of the 1971 Act, which is inserted by Clause 1 of the Bill, provides in subsection (7) that fire authorities may include in the notice of exemption a statement specifying the greatest number of persons of a description

141
specified who, in the opinion of the fire authority, can safely be in the premises at any one time. Under new Section 8A of the Act, inserted by Clause 2 of the Bill, occupiers are required to notify the fire authority if they are proposing to use the premises in a way which will involve a greater number of persons being in the premises than the maximum specified in any such statement. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the fire authority to review the justification for continuing the exemption, since the number of persons using the premises may have been a material factor in the original decision to grant exemption.
It is quite possible to envisage cases where, having been notified about a proposal to use the premises for persons in excess of the maximum specified in the statement, the fire authority may conclude that because of a change in the circumstances a greater number could be permitted, without the need for the exemption to be withdrawn. In other cases, it might be appropriate, following alteration of the premises, to reduce the maximum number of people permitted to be present or to modify the description of the people concerned. However, it will be noted that the procedure in the Bill at present provides no opportunity to vary the statement while the exemption is in force. To do this, the fire authority would have to withdraw the exemption thereby triggering the requirement for the occupier to apply for a fire certificate. The fire authority could then grant a notice of exemption with a different statement about the number of persons. We believe that this would be a bureaucratic and cumbersome way to meet the situation I have outlined, and the amendments are designed to provide a more appropriate procedure.
The first of the amendments provides for the insertion of a new subsection (8) into Section 5A giving the fire authority an additional power, exercisable at any time while an exemption is in force, to cancel the statement altogether so that it ceases to have effect, or to alter the statement by varying the maximum number (upwards of downwards) or the descriptions specified, or both. The power is exercised by notice to the occupier of the premises. The second of the amendments provides for the notification requirements in Section 8A to relate to the statement as varied. Finally, the amendment to Schedule 1 is consequential on the other changes in providing that in relation to certain premises consisting of part of a building the reference to the occupier in the new provision should be replaced by a reference to the owner of the building, in accordance with the other modifications which are made by the schedule. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: The Minister was kind enough to write to me and explain the reasons for this amendment which I certainly do not oppose.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exemption from requirement to have fire certificate: supplementary]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 18, after ("specified") insert ("or treated as specified").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Charges for fire certification work]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Mishcon: The Committee will have seen that this clause introduces fees, for the first time as I understand it, to he charged by fire authorities for their certification work. It is expressly provided that the costs of inspections are not included and the Committee may think that it is a very modest request that a fee should be charged when a certificate is granted or on an application for a certificate. I am quite frankly frightened about the introduction of a charge of this kind, even though it appears to come in in a very moderate way and on a very moderate basis.
One of the ways in which the public and small businesses are encouraged to apply to the fire authority for advice is that that advice is freely and courteously given throughout the country, free of charge. I know that advice is not to be charged for under this clause, but the reason I wish to move that this clause do not stand part of the Bill is that in my view—it is the view also of those who are very experienced in these matters, and they have put their view to me by representations—we should not start by making charges in connection with fire matters.
I mentioned small businesses and I said there was not the slightest hit of politics in this Bill. I hope noble Lords will not think that I am indulging in politics when I say that there is from the Government side. and I hope from the Opposition side too, a great desire in these times to encourage small businesses and to ensure that their expenses are kept as low as possible. This is one of those occasions when there will be a charge, however moderate. Do we want to start this? Do we want to create what land others with me feel to be a rather unsatisfactory precedent? I beg to move that this clause do not stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Caithness: I was a little surprised to see on the Marshalled List this amendment by the noble Lord to leave out Clause 3, because there is nothing very radical about charging for fire certification. The Committee will be aware that a whole range of local authority licences are now subject to charges, including those with which Parts II and IV of this Bill are concerned. Indeed, the very small businesses to which the noble Lord referred, and which I will call in aid at a later discussion, are subject on planning permission and such matters to small local authority charges; so this is not new territory. There is nothing very sacrosanct about charging for an activity concerned with safety. There are precedents which already exist. When one is talking about safety one will bear in mind the building control approval.
Perhaps I may give the Committee an idea of the likely cost, which I think is important, so as not to lose the perspective. We estimate that on the basis of charging that we have proposed in the Bill the cost of certifying a factory of 20,000 square feet—which is by no means a small factory; it is not a starter business

143
factory—would be of the order of £30. An office block of 50 people would involve about £50. A hotel with 30 bedrooms would involve about £100. I do not think those are excessive charges such as might deter a small business from setting up.
We looked at this very carefully and we bore in mind this particular point. That is why we chose to charge in this section of the Bill on an administrative basis rather than the full cost, because we felt that the full cost would be prohibitive. We took very careful account of what the small businesses said to us. I hope, given that, that the noble Lord will allow this clause to remain part of the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I regret that the Minister has not made me very happy with his reply, and I hope that a similar feeling of some discontent is in noble Lords' minds too. We are not comparing like with like when we compare planning applications with an application for a fire certificate. That is my first point. My second point is that I readily admitted that the charges here would probably be very moderate indeed since they are only meant to cover the administrative cost of issuing the fire certificate.
My worry is that for the very first time, as I understand it, we are introducing into a Bill dealing with fire precautions and fire safety a charge to members of the public. That means that some future government, seeing this as a precedent, and with a Minister as eloquent as the present Minister who is answering this debate will argue: "Well, Parliament, you once passed very readily a charge being made in respect of fire certificates. Now all I am doing at the behest of the Treasury is extending that just one little bit. Why should not people be charged too for the advice that they seek from the fire authority?"
I regard this as a matter of principle, because I think we all need to see that the matters that I have tried to put before the Committee in this respect are properly safeguarded. I think it is appropriate to take the opinion of the Chamber.
The Earl of Caithness: I know that I shall not be able to persuade the noble Lord to take a different point of view. I see in his eye that steely glint which makes a Division certain, I fear, but I would just say to the noble Lord that there is already a right to charge fees under the 1963 and 1982 Acts, so that has been in existence for some 24 years. I agree that there has not been a charge under the 1971 Act, but I feel that the small charge, which is very much in line with government policy in this instance, is one that should remain within the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I wonder whether the noble Earl will forgive me if I ask him to describe to the Committee with his usual frankness the nature of the charges in regard to that very ancient legislation which he mentioned.
The Earl of Caithness: The nature of the charge is on a full cost recovery basis, but I fear I have misinterpreted the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: As I understood the noble Earl, he was saying that there is a precedent and he quoted
144
some ancient Acts to show that there was a precedent. I am asking him kindly to tell the Committee what is the nature of that precedent. For what are charges allowed to be made in connection with fire matters?
The Earl of Caithness: The safety certificates which include fire in respect of designated sports grounds under regulations are the matters about which I am talking.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Earl has been very frank. They obviously do not relate to the members of the public, such as I was talking about; they relate to sports matters and they relate to safety other than in regard to fire, although fire may be included. I am obliged to the noble Earl for being so frank because it helps my argument.
3.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 82.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Glanusk, L.

Aldington, L.

Gormanston, V.

Allerton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Alport, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ampthill, L.

Auckland, L.

Halsbury, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Blyth, L.

Hooper, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jessel, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Killearn, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Byron, L.

Knollys, V.

Caithness, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Layton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Cathcart, E.

Long, V.

Chalfont, L.

Lovat, L.

Chelmer, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Lurgan, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

McFadzean, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marley, L.

Cox, B.

Merrivale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Middleton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Molson, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

De Freyne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundee, E.

Moyne, L.

Effingham, E.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainford, L.

Portland, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Gisborough, L.

Richardson, L.

145

Rodney, L.

Swinton, E.

Rugby, L.

Terrington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trenchard, V.

Sandford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Sandys, L.

Ullswater, V.

Savile, L.

Vickers, B.

Selkirk, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Swansea, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Leatherland, L.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Banks, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

McNair, L.

Blyton, L.

Mais, L.

Bottomley, L.

Mar, C.

Briginshaw, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brockway, L.

Milford, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mishcon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Chitnis, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Northfieid, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Oram, L.

Denington, B.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Diamond, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.[Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ezra, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rochester, L.

Fitt, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Grey, E.

Somers, L.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Strauss, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ilchester, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jacques, L.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Whaddon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

White, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wilberforce, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lawrence, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 3 agreed to accordingly.
3.36 p.m.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [General duty as to means of escape and for fighting fire]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 32, after ("provided") insert ("at all times").
The noble Lord said: I can move this amendment briefly. Clause 5 provides that means of escape, and other matters covered by the clause, shall be provided. However, as I see it—and I may be wrong—there is no duty to maintain; and that is obviously very necessary in regard to any occupier of premises. Therefore, my amendment proposes that it,
"shall be provided at all times"
and not only initially, at the very beginning. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The statutory duty imposed under Section 9A of the 1971 Act, which is inserted by this clause, is an important feature of the modified system of fire precaution controls which we are seeking to introduce through this Bill. The statutory duty will ensure that fire precautions in premises put to a designated use which are exempted from certification can be kept up to the necessary standard.
I can therefore fully understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to want to make sure that the duty is a continuing one which applies at all times. I can however assure the Committee that this is already the position under the section as drafted. The duty requires premises to which the section applies to be provided with such means of escape and means for fighting fire as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case. This is not a once-and-for-all requirement which will enable occupiers, having provided a protected escape route and sufficient fire extinguishers, to forget about fire safety in their premises. The escape route must be capable of being used and the fire extinguishers must work otherwise the premises would not be provided with a means of escape and means for fighting fire in accordance with the requirements of the section.
If, on inspection, the fire authority discovers that the fire exits are locked when they should be open, or that extinguishers are not in place, the occupier will be in contravention of the statutory duty and it will be open to the fire authority to prosecute him or, more likely in the first instance, to serve an improvement notice requiring the occupier to take steps to remedy the contravention. Failure to comply with an improvement notice is an offence.
I can assure the Committee that the intention behind this amendment is already achieved by the Bill and that the amendment adds nothing to it. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that reply.
Lord Mishcon: It comes peculiarly from me, but why give fees to lawyers which, in my judgment, they would not properly earn? If it is a fact that the effect of these words is to provide at all times, why should not the words be included? If the noble Earl will explain that to me, I shall rapidly consider my position.
The Earl of Caithness: There is little I can add because as I read the Bill the situation is already covered. Even if we add the words, I cannot see what effect that would have on an occupier who, for example, does not maintain a sufficient number of fire extinguishers when the power is already in the Bill to remedy the situation.
Lord Mishcon: I cannot think that it is a useful expenditure of the Committee's time for me to continue this discussion. I repeat to the noble Earl what I said before. Why not have the provision in if that is what the clause means? Maybe in his great courtesy he will consider that question between now and Report stage, because I do not think, as I said, that I ought to delay the Committee any longer on an amendment of this kind. I accordingly ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Improvement notices]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, line 26, after ("or") insert ("in exceptional circumstances")
The noble Lord said: The fire authority requires work to be done from time to time in order to ensure fire safety. It is of the greatest importance that the work in regard to fire safety is carried out expeditiously. The clause that we are discussing at this moment gives the power, perfectly properly, for the fire authority to extend the time during which those works can be carried out. Then it goes on to say, "or further extend". In order that the urgency of the sort of works that we are talking about can properly be realised, I have inserted the words that the further extension can be granted, "in exceptional circumstances", so that people who are required to do this work do not think that it is an automatic extension or a further extension that is going to be given. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: The Bill is silent on the maximum period which may be allowed by the fire authority for the occupier to remedy a contravention of the statutory duty. The period must be at least 21 days, since this is the time within which an appeal against an improvement notice may be brought by the occupier under new section 9E, which is also inserted by this clause. It is for the fire authority to determine what period should be allowed to remedy the contravention, and it will no doubt have regard to the seriousness of the contravention and the extent of work required to remedy it.
While the fire authority will obviously endeavour to set a realistic period, it is quite possible to envisage situations where as a result of unforeseen circumstances the occupier is unable to complete the necessary steps within the period specified. The new Section 9D provides for the period to be extended. Following the precedent for improvement notices served under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, the Bill provides for this period to be further extended, although we do not expect this to happen very often. I do not think that it is necessary to define those occasions since they will in practice be unusual. If we try to introduce the words in the amendment this could give rise to disputes about what is meant by "exceptional circumstances". I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that that probably means more fees for lawyers. We firmly believe that it should be left to the fire authorities to decide when an extension of time can properly be granted, and I am confident that we can rely on them to use their powers in a sensible way. If we try to define it too tightly I believe that we restrict the fire authority. The wording that is not so restrictive in the Bill will not in any way deter the fire authority from wanting the work to be completed at the earliest possible opportunity, but it gives it that little bit of extra flexibility.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Earl said that this will only be done in special circumstances. This work is urgent, and all that I sought to do was to say that a further extension could be granted. The power is there. The flexibility is there. But there must be exceptional
148
circumstances put forward in order for that further extension to be granted.
I wonder—I hope I am wrong—whether or not some future case will emerge where an official of the fire authority, bearing in mind that he had the right to grant a further extension where fire safety was involved in respect of works required to be done, will loosely look at the Bill as it now stands and say, "Well, I have the power to extend. I have the power further to extend. It seems to me to be pretty reasonable to grant it". If some catastrophe does not occur in the meantime—I hope it will not—at least Parliament, the Committee may feel, will have done its duty if it has pointed out that a further extension should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
The Minister himself has said that he expects the cases to be few and far between. He nods his head as I utter those words. Would it not be a gracious act in a good cause if he were to accept this amendment? I ask him once more to do so before I adopt a certain course of action.
The Earl of Caithness: I believe that the words "exceptional circumstances" have hidden hazards for interpretation. If one can envisage the situation of an inspector, who will be a senior man at this stage, going round and saying to a business man, "You must carry out certain works in order to satisfy me and these works have to be done by a certain time", he then has that little bit of flexibility, if good will is shown, to extend the period and resolve the dispute as quickly as possible. The last thing that anybody who is involved with the fire service wants is in fact a fire. They would be much happier preventing it and trying to help the situation and the owner in the first place by creating a climate in which a fire does not occur. If the owner prevaricates and seeks to use the words "exceptional circumstances" to delay the necessary work—and this is where I see the hidden hazard—I believe that this could lead to a difficult situation that might have to be resolved by a court of law. That yet further delays the situation.
Lord Mishcon: I said I would consider a certain course of action. I meant those words to be thoroughly menacing, but they have had little effect upon the Minister. I do not think that I ought to call that menace an invitation to the Committee at this stage of the Bill to express a view on a matter of this kind. I merely turn to the Minister with, I hope, some pathos in my voice to ask him in the same spirit as I asked him last time whether or not he merely explains things by the use of words—and they are very simple words—and whether it would not be acceptable to the Government to have them in if quite obviously, in my judgment, they do no harm. With that plea to the Minister, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Duties as regards safety pending determination of applications for fire certificates]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, leave out from beginning of line 23 to ("and") in line 25 and insert—

149
("(a) all premises to which this section applies be provided at all times with—

(i) such means of escape in case of fire, and

(ii) such means for fighting fire,

as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment would simply ensure that premises awaiting the issue of a fire certificate would be required to achieve the same standards in respect of means of escape and means of fighting fire as those premises covered by Section 9A of the principal Act.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I fully understand the very laudable intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in putting forward this amendment, but I invite the Committee to take a close look at its effect in relation to the existing fire certification system as modified by the Bill.
It will be noted that Clause 8 of the Bill comes under the heading,
"Interim duties as to safety of premises".
The key word in "interim" because the clause is only intended to cover the period from the time of application for a certificate until either the certificate is issued or an exemption is granted. In cases where full certification is to be the outcome, the fire authority will decide whether the means of escape and the means for fighting fire, in addition to other matters such as the means for giving warning in case of fire, are such as may reasonably be required in the circumstances of the case.
Where there are shortcomings, the fire authority is required to serve the occupier with a notice detailing the steps which need to be taken to bring the premises up to the necessary standard to enable a fire certificate to he issued. If the fire authority decides to grant exemption from certification, the statutory duty imposed by the new Section 9A inserted by Clause 5 takes effect and the occupier is required to comply with that duty, where appropriate following the guidance in the relevant code of practice, which will take account of the low-risk status of exempted premises.
In the interim period leading up to the disposal of the application, I believe that it would be unreasonable to require more than that the means of escape with which the premises are already provided should be capable of being safely and effectively used at all material times. That would not involve the occupier in making any structural changes in advance of a decision by the fire authority which might lead to specific improvements being required of the occupier. In the meantime, however, paragraph (b) of the new subsection (2A) of Section 5 inserted by Clause 8 requires that any persons employed to work in the premises receive instruction or training in what to do in case of fire.
I should add that as a result of the redeployment of fire service resources which we hope will be brought about by the exemption provisions in the Bill it will be possible for fire authorities to deal more expeditiously with applications so that they are disposed of more quickly than has sometimes been the case in the past. This will reduce the period during which the interim duties apply.
150
I hope that I have made it clear that the requirements imposed by this clause are intended to provide no more than an interim measure of protection and that, pending disposal of the application, it would not be reasonable to require compliance with the full statutory duty as proposed in the amendment. I call in aid the case of the small business where, under the noble Lord's amendment, the owner of that small business might be required to undertake structural alterations in order to provide for a situation which at the end of the day, after the interim period, is agreed not to be necessary. So he could be involved in additional cost before final determination.
However, it does not mean that in the interim the premises present a serious risk to persons in case of fire because there are unsatisfactory means of escape which are immune from control. That point has already been covered by my earlier remarks and the fire authority will make sure of it. This measure covers the interim period and I think that it would be wrong to impose conditions during the interim period which might be applicable at the end of that period when they may not be necessary.
Lord Mishcon: The Minister was good enough to say that my intentions in moving this amendment were laudable. It seems that, in moving amendments, the more laudable my intentions the more intense his opposition. However, I ought to consider what the Minister has been good enough to say. In the meantime, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Relevant matters for order prohibiting or restricting use of premises]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 9:
Leave out Clause 9 and insert the following new clause:
("Relevant matters with respect to prohibiting or restricting use of premises. Power to prohibit or restrict use of certain premises until excessive risk to persons in case of fire is reduced.
.—For section 10 of the principal Act (court's power to prohibit or restrict use of premises in cases of excessive risk to persons in case of fire) there shall be substituted the following section—
"10.—(1) This section applies to—

(a) any premises which are being or are proposed to be put to a use (whether designated or not) which falls within at least one of the classes of use mentioned in section 1(2) of this Act, other than premises falling within section 2 of this Act; and

(b) any premises to which section 3 of this Act for the time being applies.

(2) (a) If as regards any premises to which this section applies the fire authority are of the opinion that the risk to persons in case of fire is so serious that, until steps have been taken to reduce the risk to a reasonable level, the use of the premises ought to be prohibited or restricted, the authority may serve a notice (in this Act referred to as "a prohibition notice") on the occupier of the premises or on every person who it appears to the Fire Authority to have a proprietory or other interest in the premises prohibiting or restricting, to the extent appropriate in the circumstances of the case, the use of the premises until such steps have been taken as, in the opinion of the authority are necessary to reduce the risk to a reasonable level.
(b) The matters relevant to the assessment by the fire authority for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, of the risk to persons in case of fire include anything affecting their escape from the premises in that event.
(3) As regards premises in Scotland any reference in subsection (2) above to the fire authority includes a reference to

151
an inspector appointed by the authority under section 18 of this Act and duly authorised by a general resolution of the authority to act for the purposes of this section.
(4) A prohibition notice shall—

(a) state that the fire authority are of that opinion;

(b) specify the matters which in their opinion give or, as the case may be, will give rise to that risk; and

(c) direct that no, or no more than a specified number of persons shall be admitted to, or to a specified part of, the premises until the matters giving rise to the risk have been remedied.

(5) A prohibition notice may include steps which will have to be taken to reduce the risk to a reasonable level and these may require alterations or additions to the premises.
(6) A prohibition or restriction contained in a prohibition notice shall take effect immediately it is served if the authority are of the opinion, and so state in the notice, that the risk to persons is or, as the case may be, will be imminent, and in any other case shall take effect at the end of a period specified in the notice.
(7) A copy of any prohibition notice shall be sent by the fire authority to the building authority.
(8) The fire authority who have served a prohibition notice may, in any case where it appears appropriate to them to do so, amend the prohibition notice by notice served on the persons specified in subsection (2)(a) above and a copy shall be sent to the building authority.
(9) A notice under subsection (8) above amending a prohibition notice shall specify the date on which the amendment is to come into operation.
(10) Where a notice has been served under subsection (2)(a) or (8) above the fire authority may withdraw the notice at any time".").
The noble Lord said: We are coming now to a very important amendment and I ask leave of the Committee to speak to Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 as well as to Amendment No. 9. I shall at once refer the Committee to the type of case with which we are dealing. Under this section we are dealing with premises where the fire authority is satisfied that the risk to persons in case of fire is so serious that until steps have been taken to reduce the risk to a reasonable level the use of the premises ought to be prohibited or restricted.
The Committee cannot possibly imagine a more serious situation for an inspecting authority to find in regard to premises. If this Bill is allowed to go forward as it stands, in such a situation an application has to be made to a magistrate's court. The authority does not have the power to issue a prohibition notice, or what will amount to a restriction notice if use is restricted and not entirely prohibited.
There has been a lot of discussion about what happened under the old procedure of applying to magistrates. The proposal contained in this Bill is considerably different from that found in all previous consultative documents, when consultations took place with the authorities and people who know all about fire. They had said that that procedure was not satisfactory and that quite obviously in those circumstances the fire authority ought to have the right and the power immediately to issue a prohibition notice, or what would amount to a restriction notice, giving the person upon whom that notice was served the full right of appeal to a magistrate's court.
Before the Committee consents to such a vital amendment, giving the authority the power immediately to issue such a notice, it may want to know why Mr. Justice Popplewell in his report said
152
that this power ought to be given to the fire authority. The Committee may also want to know why it was thought suitable in all the consultative documents, taking into account the consultations that took place, for that power to be given to the fire authority, so obviating the delay caused by going to a magistrate's court.
The Committee is entitled to ask me to give it the facts as they were brought to the attention of all those people who were consulted and presumably as they were known to Mr. Justice Popplewell before he issued his report and recommendations. I think that I can best do that by reading very briefly first of all some details of cases of that nature that have occurred over the past couple of years. I shall not go back beyond that time.
There are eight cases of which I shall not mention all the details but simply the relevant dates and the Committee will hear what happens when these matters have to be referred to a busy magistrate's court. We all know that lay and stipendiary magistrates up and down the country are finding it extremely difficult to deal with the number of cases that they have in their lists, many of which have to be long delayed. The first case relates to 59 Brick Lane, Stepney. The issue date of the summons by the fire authority was 21st February 1985. A hearing date was fixed for seven days later, 28th February 1985, when the matter was adjourned until 14th March, when it was further adjourned until 11th April 1985. In these emergency circumstances it took 49 days for that application to be heard by the court.
The second case within the last two years is the Bucks Hotel in Beaufort Gardens, Chelsea. I have chosen only London cases because, frankly, these are the only cases at which I have been able to look. The issue date of summons was 5th February 1985, and the hearing date was fixed for 11th February 1985, that is. seven days later.
The next is 10 Glebe Avenue, Woodford Green, 4th July 1985, and it was eight days before the magistrates could hear the case.
Then 26 Hanbury Street, Stepney: 8th March 1985 was the issue date of the emergency application. It was heard on 19th March 1985, the first time that it could be by the court—12 day's delay.
The next is 2 Leswin Place, N16: the date of the issue of the application for the emergency hearing was 26th March 1985. It was heard for the first time that it could be on 2nd April 1985—eight days' delay.
Then 22 Princelet Street, Stepney: the date of the issue of the application was 28th February 1986, and it was six days before the case could be heard.
The next is 1 Station Parade, Balham: the date of the issue of the application was 15th March 1985. It could not be heard by the court for 11 days, and it was heard on 25th March.
Last—and I shall read to your Lordships the details of this one, if I may—is 138 Commercial Road, E1. The date of the issue of the application for the emergency was 2nd September 1986, it was heard on 11th September 1986, 10 days after, and adjourned

153
until 30th September 1986, a further 19 days, making a total of 29 days before it could be heard by the court.
My Lords, I ask you to be patient with me because this is such an important matter. I mentioned that these premises are in Commercial Road. I took the trouble to find out the details. Your Lordships will get a true picture if you will bear with me while I read out the details.
Following a visit by the district surveyor in regard to an allegation that the premises in question were a dangerous structure due to overloading of floors, the London Fire Brigade was informed that the means of escape and general housekeeping were considered to be inadequate. As a result of that information an inspecting officer visited the premises.
During that inspection he found that the building, which is used as a clothing manufacturers and is of three floors and a basement, did not have adequate means of escape. The single staircase running from the basement to top floor level was unprotected throughout its length. Persons were working on the top floor at the time of the inspection. Additionally the standard of housekeeping was poor, with flammable materials stored in and under the staircase.
The inspecting officer considered that a serious risk to persons existed and contacted his divisional officer, who visited the premises and confirmed the existence of dangerous conditions. The owner was approached and the situation explained, including Section 10 procedure. It is the section under the old Act which I am talking about.
The owner refused to carry out the work deemed necessary to alleviate the dangerous conditions or to restrict the use of the building. Accordingly he was informed that an application would be made to a magistrates court—that was the only procedure available under the old Act, and will be renewed in the procedure under this legislation—to seek an order under Section 10 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to restrict the use of the building. That is all that was wanted at that stage.
On 2nd September 1986 the legal branch of the London Fire Brigade made an application for a hearing, and the application was scheduled to be heard on 11th September 1986 at Stoke Newington Magistrates Court. Defending counsel was able to convince the magistrates, in spite of the dangerous conditions existing at the premises, that an adjournment was required to 30th September 1986.
At the hearing on 30th September—and your Lordships will appreciate the risk carried in the meantime—the defendant agreed prior to going into court to carry out the work that the fire brigade deemed necessary, and the matter was adjourned sine die.
One can imagine what could have happened in that interim period, having regard to that report, which I have read almost verbatim. It comes from the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, the very authority in charge of the inspection and the decision about urgency, danger and so on.
What we ask is that the fire authority should have the power and the right, to issue this notice forthwith. The effect would be that, pending an appeal, it remains
154
in effect but the appeal runs in its normal way to the magistrates' court—and your Lordships may think that that is the proper procedure if we are trying to safeguard our fellow citizens in a very dangerous situation.
I repeat that this is the wish not just of a section of the community; it is the wish of the fire authority, it is the recommendation of Popplewell and it was the considered opinion in all the consultative documents that have so far been issued. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I can confirm that the Government attach the greatest importance to fire authorities having effective arrangements to deal with premises that present a serious risk to persons in case of fire. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the Government and Parliament to ensure that any powers made available to enforcement agencies such as fire authorities are not excessive and that the legitimate interests of occupiers are safeguarded. I therefore welcome the opportunity which this group of amendments and new clauses has provided for us to discuss this issue today.
As I indicated in the debate on Second Reading, after considering the comments made on the consultative document on the review of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, the Government were not persuaded that the present arrangements were inadequate. We received quite vocal opposition to a change from the business community, which was fearful that its interests were not being legitimately safeguarded, and we took that, and particularly the comments of small businesses, into account.
I have listended very carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The list of delays experienced by the London Fire Brigade in obtaining hearings in magistrates' courts, which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has cited, is a matter for concern. We are aware that the magistrates' courts face enormous pressure, particularly in urban areas. It may be that the solution to the problem lies in a better administrative arrangement between local authorities and the courts so that unnecessary delays are avoided or at least reduced.
But that is not the complete answer. The answer that I should like to give to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, today is this. In the light of what he has said, I should like to take this away and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary with a view to looking once again at this point because it is such an important one, and one that the Government are very concerned we should get right. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my complete good faith in that matter and accept that I wish to discuss it with my right honourable friend. I hope in those circumstances that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I was glad to hear my noble friend give that answer because I must confess that I was somewhat disquieted by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I discount the fact that he is the best debater in this place and could easily make a poor case sound splendid. The noble Lord made a significant point, particularly in view of the delays in magistrates' courts which he cited, and which my noble friend did not contradict, during which of course

155
premises ex hypothesi dangerous continue to be occupied. I was therefore glad to hear my noble friend say that he would have another look at this matter.
It may be that the right thing to do is to go the whole way with the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, and have the power to close in the hands of the fire authorities. Alternatively, it may be possible to provide that a magistrates' court be compelled to give absolute priority to such application over any other matter before it. I do not want to express a view as between those two. It is obvious that we shall return to this subject on Report. When my noble friend goes to his right honourable friend, I should like him to know that it is not only the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who is disquieted by the present position.
Lord Mishcon: I would never question the good faith of the noble Earl. I now know him too well ever to do such a thing. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. To be called by the best debater in this place the best debater in this place is, I suppose, a compliment.
The noble Earl heard what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said. I take it from the noble Earl's words that the discussion will take place with his right honourable friend on the basis, of an open mind and on the basis, as the noble Lord said, that concern was expressed in this place, which had no party demarcation, at the fact and nature of the delays which are bound to occur.
I accept the noble Earl's offer as I hope he expected me to do. I hope that he can communicate with me with a decision in good time before Report. No one will be happier than I to see an amendment go down in the Government's name to cover this subject. If he cannot see his way to do that, I know that he will expect me to raise this matter again. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Clauses 10 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Special provision for certain premises]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 43, at end insert—
("(3) In the principal Act—

(a) in section 34 (modification of certain enactments relating to Scotland) for the words "the Schedule" there shall be substituted the words "Schedule 1"; and

(b) in section 43(1) (definitions) in the definition of "the court" the words "and the Schedule thereto" shall cease to have effect").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 32. These two amendments are minor technical changes to the Fire Precautions Act 1971 which are consequential upon the conversion of paragraph 16(2) of the schedule to the 1971 Act into Schedule 1 of this Bill. I apologise to the Committee that we did not pick up these matters when we originally drafted the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Special procedure in case of serious risk: prohibition notices]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 14, line 27, after ("authority") insert ("or the fire authority or, when the local authority is not in Greater London or a metropolitan county, a building authority").
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission may I speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 21 inclusive? I shall do so with great brevity. An extension to the powers of prohibition is sought in this amendment to include the fire authority and the police, as on many occasions representatives of those authorities would be present at a sporting event without any local authority attendance. Such a measure would allow immediate action to be taken at a time when it is considered that public safety may be at stake. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: Clause 22 follows Mr. Justice Popplewell's recommendation that authorised officers of the local authority be given powers to issue notices to prohibit or restrict the use of sports grounds where there is a serious risk to spectators. The new power replaces the existing powers of Section 10 of the 1975 Act under which any prohibition order is issued by the courts on the application of county, regional or island councils, and in Greater London or the metropolitan counties the London borough and district councils respectively. Those are the certificating authorities.
This group of amendments would have the effect of giving the responsibility to exercise powers under Section 10 of the 1975 Act to additional authorities so that in every part of the country two authorities could issue prohibition notices.
In the shire counties that would be the county and district councils (as building authorities), and in Greater London and the metropolitan counties the London borough or district council and the fire authority. The amendment would place the burden of enforcement where it does not now lie, and that duplication does not seem the most economical use of local authority and fire service resources.
The 1975 Act has been hitherto enforced on the basis of co-operation among a number of authorities in each area but with the responsibility clearly placed with the certificating authority. Our proposals for Clause 22 allow for consultation between district and county councils and fire authorities as appropriate. I believe that the new system of prohibition notices and the increased awareness since the Bradford fire of the need for action in cases where there is a serious risk will ensure that spectators are adequately protected. I see no advantage in needless duplication of responsibility which could lead to confusion, particularly for the sports ground management.
I understand what the noble Lord is trying to achieve with these amendments but I do not believe that the situation will be clearer or more helpful if we have two different authorities involved. That was

157
alluded to during the Bradford fire when there was no clear line of responsibility. What the right hand of one authority may know may not be the same as what the left hand of a different authority knows. That would leave sports ground management in an invidious position. We believe that it will create a situation where a nasty occurrence such as happened at Bradford and which we pray will not happen again is more likely to occur than with the clear demarcation lines that we have set out in the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I should obviously take up the points that the noble Earl has made today with the fire authority and others who have made representations. In order to enable me to do that, may I have the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 21 not moved]:
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Enforcement: inspections and offences of obstruction]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 17, line 41, at end insert—
(", and such guidance may include the requirements that—

(a) the local authority consult regularly at meetings or otherwise with the chief officer of police and the fire authority or (where the local authority it not in Greater London or a metropolitan county) the building authority; and

(b) the chief officer of police and the fire authority or (where the local authority is not in Greater London or a metropolitan county) the building authority be represented at such periodical inspections.").

The noble Lord said: With the Committee's permission may I also speak to Amendment No. 28? Again I can deal with this matter briefly. We are talking about guidelines. I seek to enable the Home Secretary to introduce regulations which lay down a programme of inspections of such places so as to monitor standards of public safety. We should know what type of guidelines we expect from the Home Secretary. This merely amplifies an important point which is brought out again in Popplewell. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: Clauses 24 and 33 place a new duty on local authorities to carry out inspections of sports grounds according to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. It is intended that there should be consultation with the local authority associations prior to the issue of such guidance. The amendments provide that guidance may make certain requirements for consultation and the representation of police, fire and building authorities at inspections of both designated sports grounds and regulated stands.
There is extensive provision elsewhere in the 1975 Act and in Part III of the Bill for consultation by the local authority with other authorities where it is useful. We welcome the idea of safety teams but ultimately it is for the certificating authority to decide how best it can discharge its responsibilities, and I do not think that these amendments will ease communication between safety authorities. Nor would I wish that guidance should be restricted to a single model in
158
order for local authorities to discharge their duty to inspect. These are issues we shall have to discuss with the local authority associations.
As I have said, we shall consult local authority associations about ways of maintaining standards of safety at sports grounds by means of inspection. But I do not believe that this end will be best achieved by legislating in such a way that too little flexibility is permitted. Specifying inspection by multi-disciplinary teams in all cases would serve only to impose what may prove to be an unnecessary burden on local authority resources. For that reason I must say that I am not very keen on the amendments of the noble Lord. I hope that he may feel able to withdraw them.
Lord Mishcon: I do not ask for abundant keenness. I ask only for acceptance—such is my modesty.
The noble Lord the Minister will appreciate that this was permissive. The words are "may include the requirements". The amendment seeks to enable the Home Secretary to deal with a matter that was, as he rightly says, very much in Popplewell's mind in the recommendations made in the report. I should have thought that it would have been of great use. Again I ask the Minister this. With his noble colleague, will he try to ensure that the guidelines are made clear to us before this Bill leaves this House? We can then see whether or not we are satisfied with them and whether or not we desire to include other provisions in the Bill in order to cover this situation.
Upon what I hope is an understanding, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 17, line 41, at end insert—
("(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, "periodical" means at least once in every twelve months.").
The noble Lord said: Mr. Justice Popplewell made it very clear in his report that he hoped that there would be at least annual inspections. The word used here is "periodical". As I understand it, one can have a periodic inspection biennially or such other times as one sees fit. It is still periodical. I felt that we ought to do what we should do in regard to the Popplewell report. It seems to be common sense as well. That is to say that when we put "periodical" in this Bill we mean at least once every 12 months. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: This amendment seeks to limit the flexibility of the provision for inspection of designated sports grounds by prescribing a maximum of one year between inspections. As I said in speaking to Amendments Nos. 22 and 28, there will be discussions with local authorities in which the question of frequency of inspection will be raised and the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State is likely to set frequencies for inspecting different types of grounds. Nevertheless, I believe it would make for undue rigidity and would place an unnecessary burden on local authorities to accept the amendment.
I doubt in particular whether annual inspection will always be appropriate for some of the smaller designated grounds. For that reason, I invite the noble Lord to see whether he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I shudder at that reply because I should have thought that if the Popplewell Committee—Mr. Justice Popplewell himself—had known that in regard to designated premises the Government thought that in some cases they need not even be inspected once a year, he would have been horrified after the matters into which he looked and the recommendations that he saw fit to make. I ask the Minister to think again. This is a maximum. In other words—he is absolutely right—the maximum period is 12 months. Once every 12 months there ought to be an inspection. Otherwise the word "periodical" is meaningless. I ask the Minister to think again. If he cannot think again in a contrary way I must take the opinion of the House on what I think to be a very vital matter of safety in sports grounds.
Lord Beaverbrook: I take very seriously the views of the noble Lord. The Popplewell Report made certain recommendations. The Government are concerned that the burden of such a duty should not fall more heavily than is necessary on local authorities. However, we would be happy to look at this again if the noble Lord would feel able to withdraw his amendment at this time.
Lord Mishcon: On the basis of the good faith that exists between us, if the noble Lord the Minister says that, I take it for granted that he intends to look at that matter again. In those circumstances, it is sheer courtesy that I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Contents of safety certificates for stands]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 19, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Before determining such terms and conditions under subsection (1) above, the local authority shall consult with the chief officer of police and the fire authority or, where the local authority is not in Greater London or a metropolitan county, the building authority.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very straightforward little amendment. It simply asks that the requirement that the local authority consult those mentioned in the amendment when determining the terms and conditions of a safety certificate for stands at sports grounds be put on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: This amendment requires a local authority to consult the chief officer of police and the fire authority or building authority about the terms and conditions of a safety certificate. Such provision is already made in lines 44 and 45 of Clause 27(10) on page 20 of the Bill. If the noble Lord turns to that, he may see that the amendment needlessly duplicates existing provisions. Under those circumstances, I would ask the noble Lord to have a look at that point.
Lord Mishcon: I am certainly happy to look at that point with the same openness of mind that the noble Lord the Minister has recently shown. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 19, line 17, at end insert ("which will include—

(i) records (where applicable) relating to fire warning arrangements including public address, automatic fire detection and fire alarm systems;

(ii) records relating to hand fire appliances (extinguisher and hose reels);

(iii) records relating to fixed firefighting equipment (sprinkler and drenchers), and

(iv) records relating to staff training and evacuation procedures".).

The noble Lord said: I am told by those who know —that is to say by fire authorities, the Fire Brigades Union, and so on—that from experience gained through involvement at the present designated sports grounds it has been found that record keeping is of considerable importance. It ensures that the management has continually to monitor matters relating to fire safety and maintenance of equipment. I am advised that these records set out in this amendment are indeed of an essential nature. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: Clause 26(3) gives the local authority the power to include a condition in a safety certificate that certain records be kept which refer to a regulated stand. The amendment seeks to set out in detail which records relating to fire safety should be kept.
The amendment limits the flexibility of the provision and risks local authorities having to impose unnecessary requirements on those with responsibility for regulated stands. The existing provision permits the local authority, in consultation with the fire authority, to include a condition in a safety certificate requiring any of the records listed in the amendment to be kept. The effect of the amendment would be to restrict the local authority's discretion without increasing its powers to see that reasonable safety standards are maintained. I therefore ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I shall consider what the noble Lord has said and in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 27 [Issue of certificates]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 26.
Page 19, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) Before making a preliminary determination under subsection (2) above, the local authority shall consult with the chief officer of police and the fire authority or, where the local authority is not in Greater London or a metropolitan county, the building authority.").
The noble Lord said: As I said in moving Amendment No. 24, this amendment asks that there should be consultation during the deliberations of the local authority with respect to a safety certificate. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that is of some importance. I beg to move.
Lord Beaverbrook: A preliminary determination under Clause 27 is the first step for the local authority

161
in deciding whether or not a stand is a regulated stand. Local authorities are responsible for deciding this in line with guidance from the Secretary of State.
The preliminary determination is thus wholly a matter of estimating capacity for which the local authority is responsible. There would not therefore be any advantage in requiring them to consult with the chief officer of police, fire authority or building authority at such an early stage, for, unless they held information which the certificating authority did not, they would not be in a position to dissent from the determination. It will of course be open to local authorities to consult other authorities if they so wish, but to introduce a requirement that they should do so in all cases is unnecessary and could well lead to delay and perhaps a duplication of resources, which we would wish to avoid.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Indeed I shall, and I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Alterations and extensions]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 27:
Page 23, line 39, at end insert—
("the chief officer of police and the fire authority or, where the local authority is not in Greater London or a metropolitan county, the building authority".)
The noble Lord said: The same point arises and I imagine that the Minister's answer will be the same. If it is roughly the same, I shall obviously consider the position in exactly the same way as I promised to do in regard to the other amendments that I have moved. In those circumstances I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Enforcement]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 28:
Page 24, line 39, at end insert—
(", and such guidance may include the requirements that—

(a) the local authority consult regularly at meetings or otherwise with the chief officer of police and the fire authority or, where the local authority is not in Greater London or a metropolitan county, the building authority and

(b) the chief officer of police and the fire authority or, where the local authority is not in Greater London or a metropolitan county, the building authority be represented at such periodical inspections").

The noble Lord said: I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 39 agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Designation of certain sports stadium and grounds under Fire Precautions Act 1971.
.—After section 1(2) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 (Uses of premises for which fire certificate is compulsory) insert the following subsection—
"1(2A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to designate any sports stadium or sports ground under subsection (1) above if that sports stadium or sports ground—

(i) has not been designated under section 1(1) of the principal Act; and

(ii) has a spectator capacity in a stand of 500 or more spectators.")

The noble Lord said: I come almost to the end of the amendments and we have reached an important point. In the debates which took place in this House on the Popplewell Report we commended these recommendations, As I understood it, the Government were minded to carry the recommendations into effect with as much speed as possible. I think that it is unnecessary to repeat the compliments that were paid to the learned judge at the time. He has the great advantage of knowing a great deal about sport and a great deal about law, and in his profession he has a reputation for reasonableness. Members of the Committee heard compliments of that kind at the time.
It was also said at that time that he had obviously acted with great precision, great care and comparatively great speed. When somebody like Mr. Justice Popplewell finally makes recommendations, especially with regard to matters affecting safety and fire precautions at sports grounds, when dealing with such a startlingly and dreadful national incident, I am sure that Members of the Committee will want to ensure that his work is not in vain.
Amendment No. 29 merely carried out a recommendation of Mr. Justice Poppewell which is contained in his final report and which is not to be found in the Bill now before the Committee. At page 21, paragraph 3.35 of the report, he says:
"Having regard to the lack of safety precautions at sports grounds disclosed in evidence to me, it would be in my view a mistake to leave to sports grounds' management the discretion of self-compliance. I therefore recommend that all sports grounds and sports stadia not designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, and having a capacity of over 500, should be designated under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 as premises requiring a fire certificate".
He did not say that he would be content with a safety certificate which, as Members of the Committee will appreciate, safeguards against the collapse of premises and platforms etc., and deals with the safety of those using the sports grounds, but he has quite obviously included in considerations of safety the risk of fire. Mr. Justice Popplewell recommended that there should be a fire certificate in these circumstances and on the basis of these facts. I have merely incorporated his recommendation in the words of this amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has so lucidly explained, this amendment seeks to implement Mr. Justice Popplewell's recommendation that sports grounds which are not designated under the 1975 Act but which have a stand with capacity for 500 or more spectators should be

163
designated under the Fire Precautions Act. The Government's reasons for not pursuing that course of action were set out in the consultative document Fire Safety and Safety at Sports Venues. That document also drew attention to the fact that Mr. Justice Popplewell himself pointed out in his final report, in paragraphs 3.43 to 3.45, that there was sense in amending the 1975 Act to cover these undesignated grounds. Reading the final report, it is clear that Mr. Justice Popplewell saw designation under the 1971 Act as an alternative measure, not as a complementary measure, to amending legislation. He was aware that the 1971 Act would allow fire authorities to issue certificates only with regard to fire safety.
Part III of the Bill creates a system of safety certificates for stands with covered accommodation for over 500 spectators which is equivalent to that for designated sports grounds in the Safety of Sports Grounds Act. More important, certificates for regulated stands will contain terms and conditions about both fire safety and structural safety. As I explained in the debate on Second Reading, Part III also provides a procedure by which the local authority is responsible for determining which stands are indeed regulated stands. Managers of stands can be in no doubt as to whether or not they need a safety certificate if they are to use their stands. The same would not be the case were this clause to be accepted. That is because the 1971 Act provides no means of determining the capacity of a stand.
I should like to point out to the noble Lord if I may, that the 1971 Act permits the Secretary of State to designate uses of premises, but not individual premises, as the proposed new clause implies. Therefore, the work of Mr. Justice Popplewell is certainly not in vain. It is already taken into account in the Bill but in a different form to that suggested by the noble Lord.
Lord Mishcon: I stand by what I said. Mr. Justice Popplewell made a very definite recommendation. He has at no time withdrawn it. So far as I am aware he is still in favour of this being incorporated in the Bill. If the noble Earl can cite me a specific reference to any letter or statement made by Mr. Justice Popplewell saying that in his view this recommendation is no longer necessary, I shall not take the course which I otherwise shall take.
The Earl of Caithness: I am not able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with regard to the criteria he asked for at the end of his additional speech. I understand the situation to be that by amending the 1975 Act we are covering the point which the noble Lord is seeking to cover by his amendment. Mr. Justice Popplewell's report presented two alternatives. One alternative was to amend the 1971 Act; but that is not as efficacious as amending the 1975 Act which we are seeking to do.
Lord Mishcon: The straight question, if I may ask it, is this. Is it not correct that the same protection by way of a fire certificate as recommended by Mr. Justice Popplewell will not obtain if this Bill is passed as at present worded?
The Earl of Caithness: I am sure that the noble Lord would want me to read exactly what he said. I should like to take that last point away so that I do not give him the wrong answer now. If that is acceptable to the noble Lord, perhaps we can come back to this point. It is important from both sides of the House to get this right. I should hate to give him a misleading answer now.
Lord Mishcon: What the noble Earl has said is perfectly fair and reasonable. All of us are concerned only to see that the right answers are eventually given. I sprang that point upon the noble Earl. He knows me well enough to know that I should never want to spring something on him without giving him a proper opportunity of dealing with it. In view of what the noble Earl has said, certainly I withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 30.
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
("Designation of certain indoor sports facilities under Fire Precautions Act 1971.
.—After section 1(2) of the Fire Precaution Act 1971 (Uses of premises for which fire certificate is compulsory) insert the following new subsection—
"1(2A) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to designate any indoor sports facility with accommodation for 500 or more spectators under subsection (1) above." ")
The noble Lord said: Again, I read from Popplewell and his recommendations and report which relate to indoor facilities in England and Wales. As I am sure the noble Earl knows full well, they are contained at paragraph 3.53 on page 23 of the final report. What I have done in this amendment again is to incorporate the Popplewell recommendation. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has elucidated that this amendment is designed to give effect to a recommendation of Mr. Justice Popplewell in his final report that all indoor sports facilities with accommodation for over 500 spectators should require a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971.
However, I would invite the Committee to bear in mind what the learned judge said in the following paragraph of his report.
Lord Mishcon: I am sorry, which paragraph?
The Earl of Caithness: It is paragraph 3.57:
"If, however, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 or equivalent GLC legislation were amended to include all sporting and recreational activities then I am satisfied that the necessary control in relation to fire precautions could be assured."
In the consultative document which followed publication of the final report, the Government accepted the principle that safety controls should be extended to indoor sports premises providing accommodation for spectators. However, it was noted that surveys had indicated that most of these premises

165
in England and Wales were already licensed under the 1982 Act and the equivalent London legislation because of the other activities which took place in them (for example, boxing, wrestling or music and dancing). Bearing in mind that these Acts enable licensing authorities to exercise control over aspects of safety other than fire, and also over such matters as timing of events and other potential nuisance considerations, the Government indicated in the consultative document their provisional conclusion that the best course was to extend the existing licensing legislation, rather than to designate indoor sports premises as a use requiring a fire certificate under the 1971 Act.
This conclusion was generally welcomed by those who commented on the consultative document, although I recognise that some fire authorities favoured designation under the 1971 Act as the best means of ensuring fire safety in such premises. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the licensing legislation, which required applicants for licences to notify the fire authorities of applications and enables the licensing authority to incorporate in a licence appropriate conditions recommended by the fire authority, does not work satisfactorily in securing fire safety in premises used for public entertainments. Nor did Mr. Justice Popplewell have any doubts on this score.
Accordingly, Part IV of the Bill provides for the licensing legislation in England and Wales (including London) and in Scotland to be extended to include indoor sports premises where spectator accommodation is provided. If the amendment were to be adopted, occupiers of the premises concerned would have to apply for both an indoor sports licence and a fire certificate, which would be an undesirable and unnecessary duplication of control, especially since many of the premises are already licensed for other activities.
I should perhaps say a word about thresholds, as to why we have not imposed a lower limit of 500 as recommended by Mr. Justice Popplewell. This is because the existing licensing legislation, which we are extending, is silent on numbers and to introduce a threshold for indoor sports premises would be inconsistent with the controls already in place for public entertainment licences, and in the case of boxing, wrestling and similar sport would represent a relaxation.
Since we are introducing a more comprehensive and appropriate system of controls over indoor sports premises providing spectator accommodation, we believe the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is unnecessary and would result in undesirable duplication of regulation.
I hope that I have been able to convince the noble Lord of that. In the hope that I have, may I congratulate him on batting so nobly for the Opposition? I believe it is the first Bill that I have been involved with on the Front Bench that we have had more bowlers and batsmen than the Opposition. It is a rare privilege to be involved in such a Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I hope that I am celebrating the victory over the West Indies which I think we all greeted with some amount of relief, having regard to
166
recent happenings. The noble Earl has been good enough to give me a very, very full explanation of the Government's attitude. I do not pretend that I have followed every word of it. Obviously, I shall want to consult with those who are concerned on this matter. In those circumstances, perhaps I may have the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment. May I thank the noble Earl for his compliment and say it is very warmly returned?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Fire precautions: special provision for certain premises]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 31:
Schedule 1, page 35, line 1, after ("5A(6),") insert ("5A(8),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Before I put Amendment No. 32, I should explain that something has gone wrong with the numbering in the Bill on page 39. The line enumeration down the left hand side of the page has gone wrong after line 25. This amendment refers to the two-line reference containing line 25 down. If it is the wish of the Committee to agree to the amendment, it will then fall into the correct place.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 39, line 31, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 43(1), in the definition of "the court", the words "and the Schedule thereto".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1987
4.52 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Local Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1987, which was laid before the House on 13th January, be approved.
The main purpose of this draft order that we have before us is to make fresh provision for absent voting at Northern Ireland local government elections. As your Lordships who study Northern Ireland matters will know, absent voters are those voters entitled to vote by post or by proxy. Some of the existing provisions that govern absent voting at local government elections in Northern Ireland will lapse on

167
16th February 1987 as a result of repeals contained in the Representation of the People Act 1985. That Act set out new absent voting rules for Parliamentary elections which this draft order applies to future Northern Ireland local elections. The draft order also extends the list of specified documents which electors may present for identity purposes when they receive a ballot paper; and also makes other minor amendments to the electoral law in Northern Ireland.
I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I do not propose to dwell at length on the numerous technical provisions contained in the draft order. I shall attempt to explain anything or to answer any questions that your Lordships may have. The general effect of the order is to repeat amendments made to Parliamentary electoral law by the Representation of the People Act 1985 and subsequent regulations. I should like to take your Lordships' time to explain one or two of the main provisions of substance in the order.
Article 2 of the draft order deals with commencement, and provides for the bulk of the order to come into force six days after it has been made, which we hope will be later this month.
Article 4 introduces Schedule 1 to the order. It amends the provisions of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962. These changes correspond with the changes made to the Representation of the People Act 1983 by the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1985. In addition, paragraph 41 of Schedule 1 on page 9 amends the list of specified documents, one of which must be produced before an elector can be issued with a ballot paper. The addition to the list is of two new documents, a British seaman's card and a Northern Ireland provisional driver's licence. The measures in paragraph 41 follow identical changes made in respect of Parliamentary elections by the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1986.
Article 5 of the draft order, together with Schedule 2, bring the provisions for absent voting into line with those for Parliamentary elections. Local electors—as with Parliamentary electors before the passage of the 1985 Act—have until now been required to fulfil specific criteria in order to obtain an absent vote at a particular election. One example is physical infirmity, and another is the general nature of their employment. The draft order also amends the criteria for an elector to be granted an indefinite absent vote, and will enable the chief electoral officer to establish a joint standing list to cover absent voting at local, Parliamentary and even European elections. In practical terms this means that disabled voters, in my first example, will be able in future to obtain absent votes for the three categories of election I have mentioned by means of a single application instead of making a separate application for each local, Parliamentary and European election. One application will, we hope, provide an absent vote for, to take one example, the disabled.
Article 6 of the order makes transitional provision for absent voters. Schedule 3 to the order makes consequential amendments to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which concerns the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers and declarations of secrecy.
I hope I have said enough to do justice to what we see as a useful and necessary measure without taking up too much of your Lordships' time. The substantive provisions of the order will, I understand, be widely welcomed by those involved in Northern Ireland electoral affairs, and in particular by electors seeking to exercise their absent voting rights at future local elections in the Province.
My Lords, that said, I beg to move.
Moved, the draft order laid before the House on 13th January be approved. [7th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I do not propose to take up the time of the House on the first of the two Northern Ireland orders. I am not aware of any controversy surrounding this order, which amends the electoral law relating to local elections in Northern Ireland in the way which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has described so clearly. The amendments comprised in the order are straightforward and sensible. We are therefore pleased to support the order.
However, I have one question for the Minister. Can he tell the House whether there were any consultations with the political parties in Northern Ireland about the provisions of the order? If there were such consultations, were all the political parties who put up candidates at the last local government elections in Northern Ireland so consulted?
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing this order. We are told that it amends the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 and the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 to make changes to the law in respect of local elections in Northern Ireland equivalent to those changes in respect of parliamentary elections made by the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Act 1985.
It seems sensible that so far as possible the law for Northern Ireland should be the same as that for the rest of the Kingdom. We would not dispute that. However, we are now in 1987 and it seems to be some time since the relevant Act was passed in 1985. There are some antiquated passages in the 1962 Act which clearly need tidying up. I ask the Minister just two questions. The Representation of the People Act went on to the statute book in 1985. Why was the situation in Northern Ireland not dealt with then and why has there been such apparent lethargy so that we are dealing with the matter only in 1987?
Of course there are still some differences in the law for the Province. Schedule 1, paragraph 41, is concerned with adding a British seaman's card to the list of documents that may be used for identification before voting. Unfortunately, identification seems to be particularly necessary in the Province to prevent personation, and we can have no complaint at the extension that is allowed. With that, I say that we support this order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful, as always, for the attention which has been paid by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and also for the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in speaking about this

169
order. He indicated what he might have in mind in connection with this order. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, certainly has a valid point and I stress that this order applies to local government elections provisions.
I think we have been round the course fairly consistently on this matter, both here and in another place. Also, the Northern Ireland political parties have been involved. The parties were not specifically consulted on the contents of the order but I understand that the leaders of the parties, who are represented in another place, were involved. The list contains the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party, and then we have this marvellous acronym UPUP. I understand this is the Ulster Popular Unionist Party. Then there is the Social Democratic and Labour Party, and also the Alliance Party, which are represented in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. We notified them in general terms of our intention to lay the draft order and we also notified its contents before the start of this parliamentary Session.
The provisions of the order already apply to parliamentary and European elections and I want to assure your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that the only major element in the draft order which is unique to Northern Ireland is the amendment to the list of specified documents. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, referred particularly to paragraph 41. That was the subject of earlier consultations with the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. I am sure your Lordships will be aware that my ministerial colleagues in Northern Ireland and I have made it clear that we will not treat Sinn Fein as if it were a normal political party, so long as it continues its support for terrorism. I wish to express my happiness at the fact that the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in another place reiterated his own view on that only last week.
The noble Lord asked about consultation with all the parties which presented candidates in the 1985 local elections. We understand that 29 parties took part in the last local elections. Ten of those parties contained the word "Unionist" in their titles and six of the other parties included the word "Labour" in their titles. I understand there were one or two parties with exotic titles, including one called "The All Night Party". I think your Lordships will see that political life is alive and well in the Province. We believe that this is in the nature of a tidying-up provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked about the commencement of this order and he also asked me to refer to the Representation of the People Act 1985. That Act was enacted in 1985 but does not come fully into force until later this month. I was not previously aware of that, and perhaps I should have been. I hope that information will be helpful to the noble Lord.
With regard to paragraph 41, the noble Lord rightly pointed out that this specifically includes the British seamen's card. I was unaware of the other element mentioned in paragraph 41 but I am given to understand that the provisional driving licence is referred to in, I think, Article 12, and there is a reference also in paragraph 41. I understand that this particular reference covers the provisional driving
170
licence in Northern Ireland, which will be accepted as a form of identification.
With that brief dissertation into the fascination of the nomenclature of the parties in the Northern Ireland elections, I think your Lordships would agree with me that we should move on.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1987
5.5 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 14th January 1987, be approved.
The main purpose of the draft order is to implement the Government's decision to transfer responsibility for the education of mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland from the Department of Health and Social Services to the Department of Education.
This decision arose from a consultative exercise undertaken jointly by the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland. I stress that views were sought from a wide spectrum of statutory and voluntary bodies in both the health and personal social services and education sectors, as well as from trade unions, political parties, parents' groups and individuals who had shown an interest in the subject. The document was also referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly for consideration. Having given careful consideration to the responses, the Government concluded that the most appropriate way of meeting the education needs of these children was to bring them within the statutory education system.
The transfer of responsibility will take effect from 1st April 1987. From that date mentally handicapped children will no longer be determined to be unsuitable for education at school. The transfer of responsibility will also bring the law on special education in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Responsibility for the provision of health and social services for the mentally handicapped will of course remain the responsibility of health and social services boards.
I will now deal with the provisions of the draft order dealing with the transfer of responsibility. Article 3 removes the duty on education and library boards to determine those children who are presently considered to be unsuitable for education at school, and removes the powers of a health and social services board to provide the supervision and training of children who require special care. It also removes the restrictions on the application of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (the principal order) to certain persons suffering from mental disorder.
Schedule 1 contains transitional provisions relating to the children and to the transfer of staff and property. Paragraph 2 of the schedule provides that children

171
who have been determined as unsuitable for education at school will be regarded as having special education needs. In response to representations made following the publication of the proposal, a change has been made to Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3). This change, which is incorporated in the draft order before your Lordships, increases from 12 months to two years the period within which the education and library boards will be required to make and maintain statements of children's special education needs.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule provides for the transfer of certain staff who are employed by health and social services boards on the training of children requiring special care to the employment of education and library boards. The staff involved include teachers, child care and ancillary staff, and they will transfer on terms and conditions of employment no less favourable than those which they enjoyed prior to the transfer. In the unlikely event that someone should be worse off after the transfer, provision is made so that compensation can be paid.
Paragraph 4 of the schedule provides for the transfer of property, including school buildings and equipment, to the ownership of education and library boards. Paragraph 5 enables the existing special care schools to be recognised on 1st April 1987 as controlled special schools, without education and library boards having to fulfil the requirements of Article 14 of the principal order.
Additional finance is to be made available to the education service to enable it to assume this responsibility. Expenditure plans for the next three years include provision for additional recurrent expenditure approaching £3 million over and above the sums which will be transferred from the Department of Health and Social Services budget. Provision has also been made for a capital programme to enable education and library boards to make a start on replacing or improving the existing buildings.
Turning now to the remaining provisions of this order, these make a number of miscellaneous changes to the principal order. Article 4 provides that once a proposal as to primary and secondary education has been approved by the department, the education and library board or other person making the proposal must implement the approved proposal. The department may modify the approved proposal if the board or other person making the proposal requests it to do so. Articles 5, 6 and 8 clarify the department's regulation-making powers in relation to schools and teachers and Article 9 enables the department to make regulations governing the eligibility of and terms and conditions for certain non-teaching staff.
Article 11 enables an education and library board to permit other persons to use the board's spare computer capacity on agreed terms and follows similar provision recently made for district councils in Northern Ireland. Articles 4 to 9 and Article 12 are in line with corresponding education law in Great Britain. If there are any points which noble Lords wish to raise, I shall do my best to reply. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved—(Lord Lyell.)
5.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this order in effect seeks to apply the principles of the Education Act 1981 to Northern Ireland in order to achieve the integration of pupils with special needs into mainstream schools. We wholeheartedly support the principle of education, because all the evidence suggests that the aims of education of children with disabilities are the same as for all other children. We therefore welcome the draft order.
We also welcome very much the announcement by the Minister that £3 million will be made available to the education and library boards to enable the principle embodied in the order to be put into practice. Whether £3 million is the right figure is a matter upon which one will have to take advice.
But on the question of additional resources, can the Minister confirm that where modifications to buildings, or the provision of new buildings or equipment, by 1st April next are reasonably required, these have been put in hand? Also looking to the future, we shall be interested to know whether additional staff will be recruited over the next 12 months and what new capital works, if any, will be carried out during the next 12 months.
It has taken five years for the Northern Ireland Office to follow the precedent estalished by the Education Act 1981, but there is evidence that, notwithstanding this long delay, the consultation with organisations representing interested parties in Northern Ireland may, unfortunately, have been rushed. The Minister referred to the consultations among the department, the unions and the boards, but as I understand it the proposal for this draft order was not circulated until about seven months ago and I have heard complaints that too short a time was allowed for consultation. Having said that, I must acknowledge that the fact that answers have by now been found for all, or almost all, of the foreseen problems and obstacles is evidence of the considerable goodwill which exists among the unions, the boards and the department.
My noble friend Lord Blease, who regrets that he is unable to be present in the House owing to a family bereavement, reminded me when I discussed the order with him—it is an order with a great deal of interest for him—that longer consultations might have anticipated or indentified hidden problems which may not yet have emerged and which are therefore unanswered.
The Minister has referred us to the schedule which contains detailed regulations governing the transfer of staff to the employment of the education and library boards as from next April. Clearly the aim is to ensure that the staff who will be transferred will not have less favourable terms and conditions of service. But it is possible—indeed it is foreseeable—that the terms and conditions of service for some members of the staff will be less favourable, and that will be the position if the new duties are not reasonably comparable with the officers' pre-transfer duties. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House who will adjudicate on the question of comparability if it is in issue.
There is concern that some teachers could lose five years increments in their salaries. It would be helpful

173
if the Minister could indicate the staff who will suffer the loss of increments and also the number involved. Am I correct in believing that they are the staff who obtained their initial training qualifications from the Muckamore College and who will not be in service on 1st April next because they are part-time or relief staff, or for any other good reason?
It would also be helpful if the Minister could tell the House what will be the status and the terms and conditions of employment of those teachers who are currently employed in adult centres and who cater for both young people and adults but who will not be transferred to the education and library boards in April. What will be their status and how will their salary compare with the salary of the staff who will have been transferred to the education and library boards? Again how many such staff are involved? I ask those questions because I understand that their position is the cause of some concern.
I am told that there is considerable confusion or uncertainty in some quarters about the status of the diploma in the education of the mentally handicapped granted by the former Ulster Polytechnic. Unfortunately, the effect of correspondence with the Department of Education seems to be to question the standing of this diploma. We shall be interested to know what the Minister has to say about the status of this diploma as perceived by the department.
I thought that it would be interesting to compare the articles of this order with the relevant Great Britain provisions to be found in the earlier legislation and in particular in the 1981 Act. I found that there are one or two interesting differences—or at least apparent differences. I found that the Northern Ireland Department has not reserved to itself in this order the right to make provision for leave of absence. Is that power available to the department under any other legislation?
A more significant difference is the power which will be vested in the department by virtue of this order to prohibit the use in schools of:
"and book or other teaching material of which the Department does not approve".
That is a sweeping power. Is it a novel power? Unless the schools have a right to appeal against the exercise of this power if they consider that it has been exercised unreasonably, it would amount to a spectacular and unlimited power, appropriate possibly to the constitution of a colony. Does the noble Lord agree that there should be a right of appeal where a school considers that the power has been exercised unreasonably? Perhaps the Minister can tell me that the right of appeal exists elsewhere.
I also notice that in the original proposal, which was issued seven months ago and which was the basis of the consultation with the unions, the library and health authorities, this power was limited to the prohibition of books. But as we see in the draft order, the power has been widened so that it applies to any other teaching material of which the department does not approve. Am I correct in assuming that there has been no consultation whatsoever with the unions, with the library boards or with any organisation as regards
174
the extension of this power from books to any other teaching material?
The order is for the benefit of the disabled children of Northern Ireland. We should be grateful if the Minister could explain to the House how the parents of handicapped children, who may be dissatisfied with the way that the arrangements are working out in relation to their own children, can lodge a complaint. Who will investigate the merits or otherwise of their complaints?
I now come to Article 11, which is the last article on which I have a few comments to make and one or two questions to ask. It deals with the computer. At first glance the provision in Article 11 allowing the board to enter into a contractual arrangement with a third party for the use of the board's computer is an attractive temptation. After all, if the computer has spare capacity why should that not be used by a third party? But can the Minister tell the House how the education boards will ensure that there is no unauthorised access to the information stored in the computer, which should be confidential and which should remain confidential? Will there be new safeguards or additional safeguards against unauthorised access to such information?
Can the Minister also tell the House whether other public institutions, such as the health boards, will have a prior claim over private institutions for the use of spare computer capacity, assuming that it is available? If so, does the department intend to invite the board to give priority to applications from other public bodies?
With those few observations and questions, we give the order our approval. As I said before, we are in full sympathy with the order and we trust that the new arrangements will work effectively for the benefit of the mentally handicapped children of Northern Ireland.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for introducing this order. It is accepted that we shall not oppose it. However, there are a number of queries that I should be grateful if the Minister could respond to. Some of those queries have already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord PrysDavies.
The new paragraph 17A(1) on page 3 appears to be rather highhanded in some of its provisions, and especially in sub-paragraphs (d) and (e). Subparagraph (d) allows a curriculum and timetable to be decided centrally by the department in a way which is not practised in England and Wales. Subparagraph (e), as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, mentioned, enables the department to prohibit the use of any book or other teaching material of which the department does not approve. So long as we have a reasonably enlightened government in office, the danger that this power will he abused is not too great. However, suppose a more extreme government took office. Surely a greater say in these matters should be allowed to local opinion. Can the Minister comment on this matter? I appreciate that the position in the Province is somewhat different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
New paragraph 70 on page 4 refers to regulations as to employment of teachers. The department is to be

175
given powers with reference to determining the eligibility of people employed as teachers, their qualifications, the probationary periods necessary and so on, which seems sensible. What worries us is subparagraph (3):
"The terms and conditions upon which a teacher (other than a temporary or part-time teacher) is employed shall be set out in an agreement entered into between the teacher and the employer and the agreement shall be in such a form as may be approved by the Department".
This is clearly a very contentious subject in England and Wales. Can the Minister confirm that there will be satisfactory agreement, as stated, between teacher and employer and no more interference by the department than is strictly necessary?
I listened with interest to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, as regards computers. I too shall be glad to hear from the Minister confirmation of the measures that will prevent that use being abused.
My final question refers to Article 12, which abolishes the annual report by the department. The obvious question is: why? I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify what the purpose of the report was and tell us why it is no longer considered necessary.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, once again we are grateful for the attention paid to this rather complex order by the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton. I hope that I shall manage to answer most if not all of the questions which they have put to me. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked a series of questions. I hope that I took them all down, as I endeavoured to do. If I have missed any, I am sure that he will forgive me and I shall be in touch with him in writing.
The noble Lord indicated to me that he was a little worried about additional resources. He also spoke about appeals. Additional resources will be made available to the education boards to enable them to implement the principle of integration, but integration into the normal school system does not arise from the order before us this afternoon. We expect, at least initially, that any mentally handicapped children covered by the order will continue to be educated in separate schools. The noble Lord will be aware that the principle of integration refers to children with special education needs being educated in ordinary schools and resources have always been available for this. Integration in the region of 40 per cent. had been achieved in Northern Ireland even before the principle was written into law.
The noble Lord raised three of four points with me about appeals. Disputes on comparability of duties will be referred to an industrial tribunal. The noble Lord will find that in Schedule 1(3)(6). There will not be formal procedures for parents who are dissatisfied about the way these arrangements are working to bring forward their complaints, but parents will have access, as they always have had, to education and library boards, as well as to the Department of Education, if they wish to make any representations about the new arrangements.
176
The noble Lord also asked about adjudicating on whether the department was prohibiting unreasonably the use of a book or equipment. We do not see that there will be a necessity for an appeals procedure because the power to prohibit the use of a book or of equipment in schools would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. Any decision to prohibit would be taken only where the content of the book was of, say, a seditious nature or where it could offend against the accepted moral ethos of the broad community in Northern Ireland. That parameter is valid for all of us in England, Scotland, Wales or wherever. I stress to the noble Lord that it is some considerable time since the existing power was last used. So far as we are aware, the existing power has not been exercised in the past 10 years.
The noble Lord also asked about the staff who he thinks may suffer the loss of five years' increments on their salaries as a result of the order. This showed the close attention that the noble Lord had paid to the order. I am given to understand that nobody will suffer any reduction of salary as a result of the order before us this evening.
The noble Lord also raised in passing the question of the Muckamore special care teachers' certificate. Some teachers who were accepted as qualified to teach in ordinary schools by virtue of the Muckamore special care teachers' certificate, as well as five years' teaching experience in special care schools, lost incremented credit for the five years when they voluntarily took posts in ordinary schools. They took these posts of their own accord. They will not be compensated because they did this of their own free will and before the order came before us. I am not able to go into the details of the salaries that they are obtaining now or indeed would have done—that is betting on a hypothesis—but the main thrust of my reply is that nobody will suffer any reduction of salary as a result of this order. The teachers who are now transferring by virtue of the order are being forced to do so by a government decision and they have been promised that no reduction will be made in their salaries.
The noble Lord asked about the staff employed in adult centres who will not be transferred to the employment of the education boards; those staff who are not dealing with children as they are defined in the Act—that is, young persons under the age of 19. Any staff who do not transfer to the education boards will remain in the employment of the health and social services boards at the adult training centres. I am advised that final decisions have not yet been taken on the numbers of staff who will be transferred under the provisions of the order so I cannot say at present how many will be remaining at the existing adult training centres under the Department of Health and Social Services. If the noble Lord requires any further enlightenment, perhaps he will indicate that to me and I shall write to him. I understand that final decisions have not been taken, and we may be able to cover that on another occasion.
The noble Lord also referred to the diploma in education which was granted by the former Ulster Polytechnic. This diploma dealt with the education of mentally handicapped persons. I understand that the full title of the diploma is the Teachers' Diploma in the

177
Education of Retarded Children. This was introduced for teachers in special care schools as part of the teacher training curriculum. This is an acceptable qualification for teaching in all schools in Northern Ireland and that is how the Department of Education treats it. I hope that that will set at rest the noble Lord's fears and possibly the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, who is not able to be with us today.
The noble Lord asked about leave of absence. Leave of absence for all staff employed in schools, including teaching staff, will continue to be a matter for the employing authorities. These will be the education and library boards and in some cases possibly the department. But the staff who are transferring to the education services will be eligible for leave of absence to the same extent as existing staff in the education service.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton, asked about the use of spare capacity of computers, which is dealt with in Article 12 of the order. They asked quite rightly about confidentiality and the protection of confidential information. The Data Protection Act 1984 places a legal obligation on complete users of apparatus and computers to protect against the misuse of data contained in any part of the computer. A high priority would be given to preventing unauthorised access to computer-based information.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked how the spare capacity might be allocated if indeed it was applied for. All the education and library boards are moving towards what we call in-house computerised administrative systems. I am afraid that we do not yet have that in my own department of agriculture and so it is a little foreign to me, but all education boards are moving in this direction. We hope that they will be able to install the necessary equipment within the next two years. In due course the board may wish to provide spare computer facilities, if it has any, to some of the groups with which it has contacts—for example, the youth clubs and the youth services. The board will want to be assured that that usage will be of benefit to the board and will not prejudice the function of the computer or the board's use of that computer. I think the noble Lord will accept that we should leave it to the boards themselves to establish priorities for the use of spare computer facilities and computer time.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked me several questions, one of which related to computer confidentiality, with which I have just dealt. The noble Lord also raised the question of Article 5. I think he said it was Article 17 of the original order.
Before I move to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a question as to consultation from the noble Lord, Lord Blease, in absentia. I understand that as far back as 1982 a consultative document on the education and training of mentally handicapped children was published by the Department of Education and also by the Department of Health and Social Services. That document was given the widest possible distribution. It was also referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly for
178
consideration. I am advised that the majority of those who replied expressed the view that mentally handicapped children should be given a statutory right to education. The Government considered that this view could best be met by bringing the children into the statutory education system. This decision was announced on 17th December 1984, just over two years ago.
The proposal for the draft order which we have before us today was published on 25th June last year. I am advised that it was referred to some 80 bodies for consideration. In the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly my right honourable friend the Secretary of State invited comments from the main Northern Ireland party leaders. All those who replied to the proposal were in agreement with the transfer of responsibility to the education services. I hope that that covers the points which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked about Article 8 and the existing arrangements for consultation and negotiation on matters which could affect teachers' employment. They will not be altered in any way by Article 8, because the negotiating machinery with the Northern Ireland teachers currently consists of the teachers' salaries negotiating committee and the teachers' conditions of service negotiating committee. Those two committees comprise members drawn from the major teachers' unions, teachers, employers and officials from the department. They are also under independent chairmanship. The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill that your Lordships are currently debating will apply to England and Wales only.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also raised the question under Article 12 of the annual report. I have a note here which says that it is not needed. There may be some further information, but as far as I am aware, this report was published in previous years but there has been a disappointingly poor take-up. The department and the Government felt that it was not cost-effective to publish it. I am advised—indeed I asked the question this morning—that the information will be available and that any interested persons may apply either to the education and library boards or to the Department of Education, from which they will be able to receive the information in an acceptable form. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
I understand that a standard run of copies of this annual report was prepared in the usual form and placed in the Stationery Office but there was a disappointingly poor take-up. The information is available, however, and the Department of Education would be more than grateful if any parent or anyone else interested in these activities made inquiries. The department will undertake to see that the information is as widely disseminated as necessary. I hope that that has covered most points. If there is anything that I have missed I shall certainly write to the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Prys-Davies. With that, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Amendment of Local Government Act 1986]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("publishing or").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to make it clear at once that this amendment is put forward in a spirit of inquiry. I do not understand how one can publish homosexuality. I can see how one might promote it, and I imagine that one might publish material which would promote it, but I do not understand how one would publish homosexuality. It does not seem very wise to leave that sort of expression in a Bill. I do not think that it will be clear to the general public. I beg to move.
The Earl of Halsbury: The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness is helpful. The Bill as drafted contains what grammatical disciplinarians would call a category mistake. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said. One can publish statistics, propaganda and so on, but one cannot publish the thing itself.
It seems to me that the way the wording should go is:
"A local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to any person for the publishing of material to promote homosexuality as an acceptable disposition orientated away from normal family relationships".
Having said that much by way of agreement with the noble Baroness—and I thank her for drawing my attention to this—I observe that the lot of a Private Member's Bill in this Chamber is a hard one unless it can get through all its stages by Christmas. If the Committee sees fit in due course to pass it, it then has to go to the other place and run the hazards of a Second Reading on Friday, when a single voice can object to it and that will kill the Bill stone dead. It has always seemed to me contrary to the spirit of amity between the Houses that a Bill that has been through your Lordships' House should be subject to this hazard from a single objector; but such is the case. I am not alone in thinking that.
I cannot expect this Bill to be exempt from the natural hazards. It has to go upstairs, and unless it gets down by Easter it does not have a chance of surviving, because the time after Easter in the other place is government time. Thus I am in rather a hurry to get this through as fast as possible so that it may take its place in the queue elsewhere. If I assure the noble Baroness that the point she has made will, if the Bill
180
survives Second Reading, be taken in Committee in the other place, I hope she will accept that and be prepared to treat it as just a probing amendment and withdraw it this evening.
Baroness David: I thank the noble Earl for what he said. I am glad that he accepts there is some sense in the amendment. I listened to what he said, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before the amendment is withdrawn, I apologise to the Committee for not having been in my place. I was the drafter of the Bill and I should like to express a word of appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for the very important contribution she has made as part of the revisory role. I understood that this debate was to have taken place in the dinner hour but it seems to have become somewhat advanced. That is the reason why I was not in my place and I hope that the Committee will forgive me.
If it is any consolation to the noble Baroness and to the Committee the difficulty here is that we all accept that the word "publishing" as it stands does not make sense. We also accept that what we should do is not take out the word "publishing" but add after that word the phrase,
"material to promote homosexuality",
followed by the words,
"or for the purpose of teaching such acceptability in any maintained school".
In other words, we should delete the words "as an acceptable family relationship". This would marry up with the view expressed by my noble friend Lady Cox, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and which is wholly acceptable to me, as I said at Second Reading. I repeat my gratitude to the noble Baroness for bringing forward this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("family").
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said that he is in a hurry. I appreciate that, and I too should like to see this legislation enacted as soon as possible. I certainly do not intend to hold up the process in any way by doing anything which might lead to the Bill being amended, which I understand would be most undesirable. However, there are three or four points which I should like to bring up but I will withdraw all my amendments at the appropriate time.
Amendment No. 2 seeks to delete the word "family" in line 9 so that it would read:
"or promoting homosexuality as an acceptable relationship".
My purpose in tabling the amendment is to broaden the scope of the Bill. I do not want it to be possible for anyone to say, "We are not promoting homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship, only as an acceptable relationship".
What the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said is true. My amendment would not broaden the Bill enough. It would be far preferable to amend the Bill in another place along the lines he suggested by

181
leaving out the words which follow the word "homosexuality" and making it an offence to promote homosexuality of any kind, full stop, wherever it occurs. That is a matter the Committee may like to consider. In the meantime, I do not intend to take my amendment any further.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Lord not only for his support on Second Reading but also for the care and trouble that he has taken to make sense of the drafting of subsection (1). All his expressions of opinion will now be on the record for the assistance of the other place and the parliamentary draftsman if it should ever come his way. I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord.
Lord Kilbracken: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does the noble Earl wish to intervene?
The Earl of Halsbury: I want only to say that I attach some importance to retaining the word "family" because it is part of homosexual propaganda that the family is a form of male chauvinism, which is not something I believe should be said. Therefore, I want to keep in the word "family" so far as possible. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord and I will see that it receives attention elsewhere.
Lord Kilbracken: It is certainly most undesirable that homosexuality should be promoted as an acceptable family relationship, but I also believe it is wrong for it to be promoted as an acceptable relationship. By deleting the word "family" we should still be making it illegal to promote homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship. However, I do not intend to press the amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("referred to in") and insert ("under").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting amendment. The Committee will see in subsection (3) reference to,
"any person having a sufficient interest to institute proceedings referred to in subsection (2) above".
However, in subsection (2) there is no reference to any proceedings. It merely states:
"A breach of the prohibition referred to …shall be justiciable in the civil courts",
without using the word or referring to "proceedings". I therefore propose that instead of the phrase,
"institute proceedings referred to in subsection (2) above",
the subsection should read,
"proceedings under subsection (2) above".
I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall not take up the time of the Committee on this matter. It is a drafting point and will be before the draftsman. I would have defended the drafting as it stands but that is a matter for another place.
Lord Kilbracken: The noble Lord told the Committee a short time ago that he was the draftsman
182
so it is not surprising that he defends the drafting. I do not intend to press the amendment; therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("pupil") and insert ("child").
The noble Lord said: This is a point of a little more substance than the previous amendment. It refers to the use of the word "pupil" in subsection (3). The Committee will note that the subsection reads:
"any parent, guardian or other person having custody of, or access to, any pupil in attendance at any such school shall be entitled to institute such proceedings.".
My amendment will substitute the word "child" for the word "pupil". I have tabled the amendment because I do not want it to be possible for anyone to claim that anybody coming under this influence is not actually a pupil in a school.
However, on looking up the meaning of the word "child", I find that it is an extremely unsatisfactory word to use in legislation. In some statutes it means anyone under the age of 14, in other statutes anyone under the age of 16, and in yet other statutes it means anyone under the age of 18. Therefore, I do not know why the word is used in any legislation. I am sure my amendment is wrong. Since tabling it I have realised—as a matter of fact only a few moments ago—that the first half of subsection (1) is not confined to children. The first half of subsection (1) simply says:
"A local authority shall not give financial or other assistance to any person for the purpose of publishing or promoting homosexuality as an acceptable family relationship".
There is nothing about schools and nothing about children. Therefore, homosexuality is something that must not be promoted as something adults should follow. That is not a bad idea. However, I did not realise that the first half of the subsection applies to adults and children and that the second half applies only to children.
In that case, I hope that the noble Earl will give consideration to extending the application further in subsection (3) by substituting "person" for "pupil" so that it applies for people of all ages. I have given no notice of this point because I have only just spotted it, but I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With respect to the noble Lord, on this occasion there is a misconception. He is right of course that when the Bill was first drafted, one's pen wrote "child". It is only when a lawyer realises the most unsatisfactory definition of "child" in a multitude of statutes, that one uses the phrase "pupil in attendance" which has not been subject to various interpretations.
The other aspect, with respect to the noble Lord, in which I suggest he is in error, is that the concept of subsection (1) is double-barrelled and the concept of subsection (3) is related only to the choke which is,
"for the purpose of teaching such acceptability".
Subsection (3) is drafted on the choke by using the words:
"Without derogation from".
The derogation is the overall rights which rest in the first part of the first barrel. On this I think, with the

183
greatest respect, that the noble Lord has misunderstood the drafting.
Lord Kilbracken: I am very grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kilbracken Lord Kilbracken moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("were") and insert ("have been").
The noble Lord said: This is purely drafting and a matter of grammar. On page 2, at line 5, the subsection at present reads:
"if such instructions have been disregarded and such steps were ineffective to secure compliance".
It would be better English if that were changed at some later stage to:
"if such instructions have been disregarded and such steps have been ineffective".
The Earl of Halsbury: As one who received a classical education in the first instance and was taught about the need to agree tenses, I would agree that a perfect passive and an aorist used predicatively should not be matched in the same sentence. Therefore, there is much to be said for what the noble Lord proposes.
Lord Kilbracken: I also had a classical education and I have forgotten a lot more of it than the noble Earl, even though it was not quite so long ago. I certainly could not remember the names of the tenses that he conjured from his memory with such accuracy. I am glad that he agrees with me, and perhaps we can correct this at some other time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
House adjourned at four minutes past six o'clock.