Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 03 February 1987 vol 484 cc137-66

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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) is cancelled; or
2. (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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 8: Page 9, leave out from beginning of line 23 to ("and") in line 25 and insert— ("(a) all premises to which this section applies be provided at all times with—

1. (i) such means of escape in case of fire, and
2. (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.

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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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—

1. (a) state that the fire authority are of that opinion;
2. (b) specify the matters which in their opinion give or, as the case may be, will give rise to that risk; and
3. (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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 11, line 43, at end insert— ("(3) In the principal Act—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 22:

Page 17, line 41, at end insert— (", and such guidance may include the requirements that—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 25:

Page 19, line 17, at end insert ("which will include—

1. (i) records (where applicable) relating to fire warning arrangements including public address, automatic fire detection and fire alarm systems;
2. (ii) records relating to hand fire appliances (extinguisher and hose reels);
3. (iii) records relating to fixed firefighting equipment (sprinkler and drenchers), and
4. (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 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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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—

1. (i) has not been designated under section 1(1) of the principal Act; and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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.