Smoke Detectors (Hansard, 18 May 1999)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)
My Lords, guidance on fire safety measures that will tend to show compliance with the building regulations in England and Wales is given in Approved Document B (fire safety). This guidance was changed in 1992 so that the installation of mains operated smoke alarms would become a standard feature in all new dwellings. There are no plans to require smoke detectors to be fitted in existing dwellings. The installation of smoke alarms in other residential properties such as houses in multiple occupation and institutional buildings can be required under other legislation or guidance. However, the approved 146 document is under review and one of the proposals is to increase the scope for the installation of smoke alarms to include other new residential buildings.

§ Lord Methuen
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware that such legislation requiring the installation of smoke detectors in residential properties new or old is already in being in the state of Victoria in Australia? Can he also indicate the estimated number of lives that might be saved if detectors were required to be installed in all property?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I was not directly aware of the precise legislation in Victoria. We give guidance that requires all new dwellings to include smoke detectors. Approximately 75 per cent of all households now have some form of smoke detector. The total number of deaths in dwellings in this country is approximately 600. One could make a rough estimate of how many lives would be saved by the installation of smoke detectors. It would not be a large number, but every life is worth saving. The government guidance through the Home Office and other authorities is that everyone should fit some form of smoke detector in their homes.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, would not an obligation to install smoke detectors in existing buildings mean that very often battery-operated smoke detectors would be fitted? As batteries run out and people do not replace them, such smoke detectors could very often give a false sense of security. People who voluntarily install smoke detectors are interested enough to maintain their batteries.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, in certain circumstances there could be that perverse effect. The guidance, therefore, does not require the mandatory fitting of perhaps inadequate smoke detectors or battery-operated smoke detectors in all dwellings. Nevertheless, any form of operational smoke detector has some benefit. We would therefore advise that in most circumstances one should be fitted.

§ Lord Borrie
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that sometimes smoke detectors are so sensitive that they are likely to be set off at the slightest amount of smoke emerging from cookers and domestic appliances, creating many false alarms and thereby being counter-productive? Does he not further agree that sometimes heat detectors rather than smoke detectors are more efficient?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I see several noble Lords nodding. Obviously their smoking or cooking habits have set off alarms in the past. I would contend that it is better to have the odd false alarm than no smoke detection system at all. As to heat detectors, they tend to be used with sprinkler systems and other forms of control. They are considerably more expensive. Generally speaking an operational smoke detector will give an early indication of any fire hazard.

The Earl of Carlisle
My Lords, is value added tax payable on the price of a smoke detector? Does 147 the Minister not agree that if smoke detectors were zero rated more householders would be likely to purchase them and install them in their houses?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I have a feeling that the noble Earl has better information on this matter than myself. It is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look at the total taxation system. Clearly a lower price would induce more people to install them. Whether that should affect our tax policy as a whole I am not at all sure. I shall write to the noble Earl to confirm what I believe to be the case.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, would the Minister not entirely dismiss battery-operated smoke detectors? In my experience they have a useful but exceedingly annoying habit of issuing shrill shrieks which one cannot trace for about a fortnight before the battery gives out. It means that one never fails to replace it a second time.

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, I hope I have said nothing to undermine the value of battery-operated smoke detectors. Clearly in new buildings we are looking to mains-operated smoke detectors in general. I, too, have had a similar experience of not being able to detect where noise was coming from. As the noble Lord has said, having had such an experience one does not make the same mistake a second time. The kind of detectors which indicate when the battery is running out or when they have been triggered are of some benefit.

Lord Renton
My Lords, could smoke detectors be persuaded to detect tobacco smoke? Does the Minister agree that if they did so they would save many more lives?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is looking for a very sophisticated piece of equipment. He and other noble Lords will know the Government's general advice on smoking. Whether noble Lords follow it is unlikely to be affected by the existence of smoke detectors.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, do smoke detectors have to be installed in residential accommodation for the elderly? How is that matter policed?

§ Lord Whitty
My Lords, it depends on what type of accommodation the noble Lord means. In general, all new buildings and dwellings have to be fitted with smoke detectors. One of our discussions about extension relates to hostel accommodation, hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation, some of which escape the present regulations.