Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 9 March 1987)

§ Lord Denham
My Lords, I have it on command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that Her Majesty and his Royal Highness, having been informed of the purport of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness)
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

§ Lord Mishcon
My Lords, as I understand there are no amendments to be moved on Third Reading, it would appear to be appropriate now to make remarks in regard to the Bill as it is about to leave your Lordships' House. It is a rather meaningful lesson that we are dealing with the passing and the last stages of the Bill at a time when Parliament and the nation are in mourning over the terrible happenings near Zeebrugge because this Bill found its origin in another disaster. Irrespective of which Party may be in government, it is noticeable that so often we find ourselves legislating because of a disaster. It would appear to be so much more the duty of Parliament, I repeat whatever Party happens to be in power, to see that there are no disasters because those disasters have been prevented by the care that Parliament has shown in passing safety legislation in vital fields.
This Bill is one which deals with safety in a very vital area, as Mr. Justice Popplewell so clearly pointed out in his recommendations in his detailed report. Many of those recommendations find their way into the Bill. I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for the very courteous and able way in which they have dealt with the provisions of the Bill and the discussions which have taken place on the various amendments. After consideration, the Government gave way tç an amendment which I had the privilege of moving from these Benches. The amendment made the dangerous notice procedure one which is likely now to be dealt with in time, rather than going through the courts, by giving the fire authority the ability to issue such a notice which would prohibit the use either in part or in whole, of a building until the danger has been removed.
I could have wished that an amendment that we lost by only two votes in regard to the necessity to inspect before exemption certificates were granted had in fact been won by two votes. I am sure that I can count on the Minister to see that the very substantial voice in regard to that amendment as it came from your Lordships' House in that voting, will be given serious consideration as the Bill goes to another place, as it will do after tonight.
Guidelines have been mentioned very frequently in the course of debates that have taken place. Irrespective of which Party happens to be in power, unfortunately too often guidelines are referred to as excuses for things not being provided for in legislation. Parliament is in the difficulty (whichever House of Parliament it may be) that they do not have the guidelines before the Bill leaves the respective Houses. Such is the position in regard to this Bill. We have heard what is likely to be in the guidelines in regard to exempt premises. I am hoping that an echo that I thought I heard in the Minister's speech at Report stage—namely, that multi-occupied premises will most likely be very carefully dealt with in regard to exempt certificates—will find its way into those guidelines.
I end by saying that in my judgment this House of Parliament said something very positive to help in this legislation when a very vital amendment, which dealt with a Popplewell recommendation concerning annual inspections of all designated sports grounds, was carried and was then inserted into the Bill. That 880 was the will of your Lordships' House. The Government, with courtesy and some degree of humility, accepted that vote and now that provision is in the Bill. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, for the care which they have taken in bringing this important Bill before your Lordships.

§ Lord Brougham and Vaux
My Lords, I should like to say a few words and echo a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said and also thank my noble friend on the Front Bench and his colleagues. I know that I did not take part in any of the discussions, but I had my knuckles rapped for voting against my noble friends as regards the noble Lord's amendment.
I should like to put forward one matter for my noble friend's consideration. I read in the paper today that the teachers are to have rallies and protest meetings in sports gounds. What happens if a large body gathers at an undesignated sports ground such as an open arena and something hazardous takes place? That is why I feel, like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that these places should be inspected every year, because, if there are 5,000 people in an open space demonstrating against teachers' pay, or whatever it is, we could have the kind of trouble which occurred in Bradford and which led to the Popplewell Report. Otherwise, I welcome the Bill entirely.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, we have now reached the final stage in our deliberations on the Bill before it is sent for consideration to another place. A Bill dealing, as this one does, with public safety demands serious attention and a non-partisan approach. I need hardly say that your Lordships have provided both. The Government are grateful for the welcome which was given to the Bill by all sides of the House, and for the efforts of your Lordships to improve the Bill and to seek clarification of its provisions. We have made a number of technical and minor amendments, and in two respects—namely, fire safety prohibition notices and frequency of inspections of sports grounds—the Bill has been significantly changed to take account of the views of the House. The effect of those changes has been to strengthen further the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975. I am sure that these changes will be well received in another place, and that the Bill as a whole will be given the same thoughtful reception there as it has received here.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for all the valuable contributions he has made during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. He has drawn with impressive effect on his experience, which is well known to the House, and on his knowledge of the work of fire authorities. He has pressed us hard on a number of points, but always from the most sincere wish to ensure that the interests of public safety were being served. Happily, he rarely found it necessary to take the opinion of the House, and I trust that we have been able to reassure him that there are now few differences between us on the matters covered by the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Brougham and Vaux has just made an important point. Of course, such a large 881 meeting as 5,000 people would probably take place in one of the sports grounds that we were going to designate anyway, but his point is well taken. It was taken by the House at an earlier stage and the Bill is amended as a result.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, it is a sad fact that we tend to legislate after a crisis rather than before. I have no doubt that this Bill goes a long, long way towards preventing another crisis such as we saw at Bradford. Let us hope that it does so.
In view of the sad times that we are in, I know that I have no need to urge your Lordships to accept this Bill. Its importance is clear to us all and I commend the Bill to the House.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.