The definition of "owner", in line five, page five, includes any person having any estate or interest in premises. Later in the Bill certain duties and certain notices can be served on the owners of a building. It appears that a person who has a very minor interest in a building, and who has no control whatsoever over it, could be under an obligation to do things under the Bill that he would not be entitled to do under ordinary law. I want to bring that point to the attention of the Minister because I intend raising it later. I have no objection to the definition but a person who owns a ground rent to the building could have obligations under the later sections of this Bill which he would not have the capacity to carry out. This is where the problem arises. I want to give the Minister early warning that I will be dealing with that under sections 20 and 21.
Fire Services Bill. 1981: Committee and Final Stages.
I have another problem with subsection (4). It says:
Any person who contravenes (by act or omission) any requirement of Part III of this Act or of any regulation under this Act or of any notice to which this Act applies shall be guilty of an offence.
There are certain duties listed in the Act, for instance, the duty under Part III Section 18(2):
It shall be the duty of every person having control over premises to which this section applies to take all reasonable measures to guard against the outbreak of fire on such premises, and to ensure as far as is reasonably practicable the safety of persons on the premises in the event of an outbreak of fire.
Is it intended that section 4 would make it an offence punishable under the succeeding section: in other words, could somebody be charged with an offence under section 18 (2)? Is that included in the definition in section 4?
That is the case. That is being dealt with in the section.
Section 9(3) reads:
the functional area of a fire authority shall be—
(a) in the case of the council of a county, the administrative county, excluding any borough or urban district, the corporation or council of which is for the time being a fire authority;
We will take the situation where there is only one fire brigade which operates within a county and there is an urban council or a corporation in that area and a county council. The county council, according to this Bill, is the actual fire authority. Is there not a danger that if somebody feels the corporation is the functional body to get in touch with, there might be a delay in getting to the fire brigade? There seems to be a conflict. Why do we not have, say, the corporation or the county council, or the corporation and the county council, as the fire authority?
My information is that this will not affect the fire brigade. This is a central provision in the Bill establishing, as it does, the concept of a fire authority. Under subsection (1) the status of fire authority will be enjoyed by all county councils and county borough corporations and by Dún Laoghaire Corporation. In addition, those other urban authorities who at the commencement of the section are maintaining their own fire brigade, that is Drogheda Corporation and Dundalk and Athlone Urban District Councils, will also become fire authorities. Subsection (2), however, will allow the Minister at any time by order to withdraw the status of fire authority from any of the last three authorities. Subsection (3) defines the functional area of fire authorities and subsection (4) provides the references in other legislation, for example, in the dangerous substances regulations. The now obsolete fire brigade authorities of the 1940 Act will be construed as references to the new fire authorities. I can see the point made by the Senator, but I cannot see it having any impact on the fire brigades.
Would it not be better for one body to be the fire authority for the particular county rather than having separate fire authorities in urban and county areas? From the point of view of joining legislation it would be better to have one fire authority in each county.
While there will be a number of fire brigades in a number of urban authorities, the central authority is the county, which is in charge. If, for example, it is necessary to have the services of any one of the urban fire brigades, the county is the central authority which will give the necessary instructions.
We have reduced the number of fire authorities to 35. I understand we had 84. I wonder if this really tackles the problem of small brigades with limited resources? How much thought, if any, was given to the question of regional fire services, based on the McKinsey Report on the organisation of local government? They believed a regional fire service was very important. This is a little bit of a puzzle. McKinsey said the regional fire service would be the only one that would have suitable organisation and finance to bring the services into proper condition for the eighties.
The county is still the authority. While the county has the responsibility, there is provision in this Bill for co-operation between the counties. The Senator is talking about a regional basis, and that is met because it is included in the Bill that there will be co-operation between the counties concerned.
What is the significance of this statement: A fire authority may advise a planning authority. If the county council are the planning authority and the county council are the fire authority, what is the significance of a fire authority advising the planning authority?
There will be urban authorities who may not be fire authorities. This is the point in the section.
But they are the planning authority?
Yes, but not necessarily fire authorities.
When we get down to the actual funding of joint operations between two county councils, or between a county council and a fire authority in another county, it may be that the provision of moneys in one county is greater than the provision of moneys in another. When a bill is coming from one county to another, one authority might feel the charge is too much. Conflict has arisen in the past because fire brigades were under the rates system. If the imposition for fire services was much higher in one county than another, there was conflict. Will there be a means of having, throughout the country, a general charge for the provision of fire services as between one authority and another?
It is expected that there would not be a charge but that there would be agreement between the counties concerned, that there would be some kind of comhar system so each county would help another if necessary. It is hoped that any charge that would arise would be by agreement, but it is hoped that there would not be a charge.
Would it not be better if when the Bill is being implemented, a general consensus charge was adopted throughout the country? This can be a source of conflict. In our own area, for instance, Waterford Corporation provided a service for Kilkenny, and the county council and the corporation worked extremely well together.
There could be a danger if we laid down a mandatory charge in the Bill. It is hoped that there would be co-operation between the different authorities involved and that a charge would not arise. I can see the Senator's point that, there is a charge between the authorities concerned, that should be agreed between them.
Part of section 16 was inserted on Report Stage in the Dáil. There are two aspects I would like the Minister to consider. Section 16 (4) (c) provides that any person who fails or refuses to comply with any requirement of the council or an authorised person shall be guilty of an offence. While it could be open to interpretation that the court will so interpret it, in view of the fact that the remainder of that section is couched in terms of reasonableness, why is it not "fails or refuses to comply with any reasonable requirement of the Council or an authorised person" rather than just "any requirement". If they ask him his date of birth, it might not be a reasonable requirement, but under this section, he might be under an obligation to give it, and if he did not he would be guilty of an offence. I think it is purely a drafting point but the Minister is giving a great deal of authority to this council to create a new class of criminal offence.
Subsection (3) (d) reads:
to take evidence on oath and for that purpose to administer an oath.
Are the Minister's advisers satisfied that that is sufficient authority to give the council, without spelling it out any further, and whether the refusal to give evidence is sufficiently dealt with by the following subsection which deals with a person who obstructs or impedes the council? That amendment was introduced at a late stage. Does it adequately spell out who is to administer the oath, the circumstances in which it is to be administered, the question of the person being adequately represented while giving evidence under oath? It is a very serious matter to give authority to the Fire Service Council. It is one thing to give them authority to investigate, but it is another to give them authority to administer oaths and become a kind of mini tribunal and mini court. That is what the Minister is doing by giving them the authority to administer oaths. Obviously, a person can be asked anything under oath. If he answers falsely he will be guilty of perjury, and if he refuses to answer he will be guilty of an offence under subsection (4). Again he would be subject to one of the penalties outlined in section 5. I would like to ask the Minister about those two points.
The last point is a drafting matter. We were advised that these are powers that similar investigating authorities would have. This is in order as it applies to similar legislation. The Senator mentioned the other powers of the council. Subsection (3) spells out the powers the council may use at their discretion when investigating a fire. These include powers to inspect and take samples on land or in buildings, require the provision of documentation, the giving of evidence before the council and taking evidence under oath. The council will have discretion whether to hold the investigation wholly or partly in public.
We are talking about a very serious matter. When you are talking about something as serious as the provisions of this Bill, and dealing with tragedies and fire hazards, it is necessary to have those powers. The general public will be satisfied, once the investigation is carried out, that it was a complete investigation. Those powers in that section are necessary in order first, to carry out a detailed investigation and, secondly, to convince the public that there is nothing under the carpet, and that there is a detailed investigation into the powers preventing the fire. I agree with that section.
One of the problems that arises under this section is that once you start giving powers to administer oaths to something like the council, there is a possibility that the investigations the council are going to carry out could develop into a public sworn inquiry, as happened with the Stardust Tribunal. The Minister has the power to set up such a tribunal and to have such an investigation, but I would not like to think that the Fire Services Council's investigations will become so public or so intricate that we will have a battery of lawyers involved for months on end dealing with the investigations. These kinds of inquiries are very limited in nature and very costly to mount. They are a reserve power of the Minister and he can introduce them when necessary. I anticipate that the Fire Services Council would carry out a much more thorough investigation but one which would not have the formality the other had and which gave rise to a colossal amount of expense.
Having said that, I am not going to push the Minister on the matter, but he might like to look at subsection (4) (c) which makes it an offence for a person to fail to comply with any requirement of the council. It should be "any reasonable requirement". It is a small point, but somebody eventually is going to be charged before the courts with an offence under this section and he is going to raise these points. If we have not looked at them properly, we might find that somebody who deserves to be found guilty will be found not guilty of an offence, because the section is drawn too widely. I am not seeking to take away powers, but I am seeking to have the powers drafted in such a way that when it is necessary to charge somebody with an offence he will be found guilty and will not get away on a technicality. That is very important too. That is the spirit in which I am putting it before the Minister, not because I disagree with the section, because I do not.
I suggest that Senator O'Leary's fears on this point may be groundless. In subsection (3) we look not at the position of the person answering the question, but the position of the person asking it. In section 16(3) (c) there is a restriction to relevant information. It may well be that the court would find that, unless the information was relevant, the person would not be guilty of an offence.
I want the Minister to clarify something for me. Subsection (2) (b) states that the fire council assist in the preparation of guidelines, codes of practice, standards of regulations relating to fire safety. It seems to me that there is something missing in that the role of the fire council may not be well enough defined because nowhere does it seem to express — maybe it will come out in the reply — the need for a national training centre or for the Department to be made responsible for drawing up a national training manual, national standards on the equipping of the brigade, rank structures and so on. I am not clear on what will happen under that subsection. Perhaps paragraph (c) will take care of it to some extent in that it undertakes or arranges for research in relation to fire or fire safety matters. That does not deal with the matter I raised, the training matters, the training manual and the question of standards of equipment and fire brigade rank structures and so on.
The powers referred to in the Bill are reserved powers. They are there in the event of their being needed. The best example is where a witness refuses to attend a court there are powers to deem that an offence under the Bill. It is hoped that the powers, such as the reserved powers, will be used infrequently. It is hoped it will not be necessary to use them. As Senator O'Leary said they are powers reserved to the Minister.
I want to be clear on this. Will the fire council be obliged to draw up a training manual or to have a national training manual or anything like that? Is it intended that they will look at the question of a national training centre for firemen, for example? Firemen have to update their skills and so on. We will now have a central fire council and I should like to know who is going to be responsible for updating the skills of the firemen and bringing them up to date on modern techniques, new training methods and so on. On the national scene I should like to know what sort of a manual will be prepared, if it will be prepared?
I am advised that most of this will be left to the discretion of the council. We cannot have it so water-tight that we lay it down exactly in detail to that extent. The council will have a discretion here in the training and the other points raised. It is hoped that it will be further dealt with once the Bill is enacted.
When is it envisaged that this fire services council will be set up? When it is set up will it consist of personnel from existing services or will it be a new independent council? Has any thought been given to that aspect yet?
The Bill must be passed before this will be considered. Once the Bill is passed this will be considered by the Government. I hope that there will not be any undue delay in the setting up of the council. I cannot say, at this stage, what the membership will be or where the membership will be drawn from. It is a matter for the Government and I sincerely hope it will be dealt with expeditiously.
A problem I sometimes have reading Bills like this is that the English used by parliamentary draftsmen is totally different from the language used by other people. Subsection (3) states:
"On the commencement of section 9, all real and personal property (including choses in action) which, immediately before such commencement, was vested in a body to which this section applies...."
What is meant by, "all real and personal property (including choses in action)"? It is not a term I have come across in English before. It may be a legal term. I should like to know what it is.
I understand it is a legal description of certain property rights.
What does it mean? If there is meaning to it it should be stated.
This is the right of legal action in relation to property. For example, if the real and personal property of a fire brigade authority is transferred to a fire authority along with choses in action then any legal claim for damages in relation to that property which the fire brigade authority may have brought would also be transferred to the fire authority, who would have the right to continue the action.
May I have a copy of that reply because I still do not know what it means.
I might be able to help in that regard. A choses in action in that section is not a real and personal property in the sense of something one can touch, but the right to collect a debt, for example, is a choses in action, or the right to take an action because somebody has done a wrong to one — that is also a choses in action. Basically, it is civil rights which give rise to an increase of wealth when brought to their logical conclusion.
That is fine.
Why is it not stated that this section applies to premises or any part thereof rather than stating the use for any purpose. There can be a conflict here. Basically, the section is listing every type of building that is thought of that might be a potential danger. Why is it not stated that this section applies to premises or any part thereof? Therefore, every building would be covered. It is like the lady in America who went to dry her cat in an infra-red oven. The cat was burned and the lady brought the company which made the infra-red oven to court because they did not specifically state that one was not to dry a cat in an infra-red oven. She won her case. The Minister could find himself in a similar situation.
Are public buildings excluded from this section?
Public buildings, as such, are not excluded. In relation to the point raised by Senator Lanigan, it refers to places where the general public congregate, premises where there is a danger if there was an outbreak of fire, places like dancehalls or premises to which the public have access or where they congregate.
Would it not be better to state "premises" and leave it at that rather than going into the different types of premises?
What the section means is to direct the attention to premises which could be a danger for the general public rather than any other kind of premises.
One of the problems is that surely if one uses the word "premises" generally one then has to say, "excluding a dwelling house occupied as a single dwelling" because dwelling houses are not included at all. The second problem is that one then comes to something like an oil jetty. Is that a premises? It obviously is not a premises in the ordinary everyday English sense of the word. Having said "premises" one really has to define what "premises" are. It does not get one any further. One might get away with stating "premises", but at the start of the Bill one would have to give a list of what one meant by "premises."
It comes down to the same thing in the end because in no way, under ordinary terminology, would an oil jetty within the meaning of the Dangerous Substance Act, 1972 be a "premises" in the ordinary sense of the word.
There are also other things which in ordinary everyday usage might not be considered a "premises". There is the exclusion of our own private dwellings, any dwelling used as a single dwelling. I know it makes it more difficult to understand but at the same time it is necessary to make the thing comprehensive. I support the Minister in that regard.
I have only two further points to make on the Bill and the one I wish to make in relation to this section is probably the more serious. I am worried about what a potentially dangerous building is. This provision may have been lifted from the 1940 Act.
In that Act a potentially dangerous building means any building which would in the event of a fire occurring therein constitute a serious danger to life for any of a number of reasons. One of the reasons is the fact that large numbers of people habitually resort thereto or are accommodated therein. That is, obviously, a dancehall or something like that. Obviously, a large number of people go to a dancehall and, in the event of a fire, that would constitute a serious danger to life. That is not saying that it is overcrowded or anything but there would be a serious danger to life if it did go on fire even if it was never overcrowded. This definition is used in section 20. According to that section a fire safety notice can be served on any person who has a potentially dangerous building. A potentially dangerous building as defined by the first part of this section is, in fact, any building to which a large number of people habitually resort. It does not have to be an excessively large number of people, but any building to which a large number of people resort is capable of definition as a potentially dangerous building. Consequently, it is capable of having a fire notice served on it and of it being closed down. That is not logical. It should have something to do with the fact that the word "excessive" would be used, where there is an excessively large number of people habitually on the premises and it has one of the defects listed. A series of defects is listed. Section 19 (1) (a) can be interpreted as meaning any large building in which there are a large number of people habitually present. That could be so defined and be the subject of a fire safety notice.
That is the only problem I have with regard to that section. It is a serious question of definition. If a dancehall which is licensed to take 1,000 people, which under anyone's definition is a large number of people, has all the proper facilities for such a number of people, at the same time, because it has a large number of people in it, it could be defined as a potentially dangerous building. Even if all fire exits were right and everything else, a fire safety notice could be served on it and it could be put out of business for no other reason than that there are a large number of people habitually there. It appears to me to be a rather peculiar definition of what a potentially dangerous building is.
In reply to the point made by Senator O'Leary I should like to state that it is precisely what it was in the 1940 Act. The parliamentary draftsman felt there were some loopholes in that Act which needed to be tightened up. On the point about a dangerous building an owner would have a right to appeal to the courts. The section clarifies the matter by adding the list of reasons which might make the building seriously dangerous to life in the event of fire. For example, the absence of adequate appliances for fire warning and extinguishment, the flammable nature of the materials used or contained within a building, the condition of a building, power, lighting, heating and ventilation system. It is an effort to determine and define clearly what is a dangerous building. Having said that, I want to add that if it is defined as a dangerous building the owner would have access to the courts to appeal against that. It is necessary in the Act. It is a tightening up of the regulations in that section of the 1940 Act.
Subsection (1) (h) is:
the fact that a fire therein would be likely to spread rapidly within the building or to other premises.
Subsection (2) (a) is:
premises consisting of a dwelling-house occupied as a single dwelling.
Such premises are not included as a building under the section. If one looks at local authority houses built prior to 1945, while they are single dwellings they were built in blocks of six to eight and there is a common under-roof area. Therefore, each of these single dwellings, even though they are single dwellings as described in the Bill, are joined together and should, I suggest, be included under subsection (h). They are being excluded elsewhere in the Bill but because of the way they are built and the fact that they have joint attics there is a potential danger there.
The Senator is talking about public housing where a number of houses are under the one roof area. The fire precautions taken in that area would be sufficient to exclude them from the section.
If a fire starts in No. 1 of a block of eight and there is a joint attic there is a potential danger to the eight houses in that group.
I am advised, and I think the Senator will accept, that it would be an invasion of people's privacy and regarded as being unreasonable if, for example, there is an investigation into a private dwelling of that sort. This could be regarded as unreasonable and it would be an invasion of their privacy. I am informed that it is not necessary.
I mentioned to the Minister that I would be bringing up the question of an owner. "Owner" is defined at the start of the Bill as being any person having any estate or interest in the premises. Basically, that includes a ground landlord, or a person who is the owner of a mortgage on the premises. That person under section 20 can be served with a notice. The notice can, under section 20 (3), impose obligations. Section 21 states that a person on whom a fire notice is served may within 14 days appeal against the notice to the District Court on one of a number of grounds. If one owns the ground, owns a £50 a year interest, and has given a lease for 999 years to somebody on the property, the following are available as defences: one is not the occupier of the building or land — obviously one is the owner; that the building is not a potentially dangerous building — let us assume that the building is, in fact, a potentially dangerous building; that the notice is unreasonable because of the improbability of fire — if it is a dangerous building that would not be available; that compliance with the requirements of the notice would involve unreasonable expense — obviously that is not a point at issue, or that the notice specified an unreasonably short time for complying with its requirements. It is not available to the person, on the other hand, to say that he is not the owner of the property or is not in control of the property.
I feel very strongly about this. If a person had an interest in the ground rent of a property he would go to court and there is a list of five things that he could offer in his defence none of which would solve his problem. Therefore, he would be found guilty. Obviously, the court would exercise its reasonableness and say this is not within its control. I do not see any reason why there should not be an additional defence open to him to say that the nature of the owner's interest in the property is such as to preclude him from conforming with the notice. Obviously, if he had not the legal power to go in and do the thing how could he be found guilty of an offence?
The point I am making is valid. I have every sympathy with the Minister trying to get the Bill through today. This is the last point I have to make but it is absolutely ridiculous to leave it out of the Bill because mortgage companies and persons who have given long leases on properties can be served with a notice. They have no capacity to comply with this notice and still they would be guilty of an offence if they do not. That is, in my opinion, bad law and the Seanad is here to try to stop bad laws being enacted.
I have no intention of entering into a confrontation with Senator O'Leary on any legal matters. I am advised that while the notice is being served on the owner there is nothing to prevent the authority serving notice on the occupier. The authority will have to take within reason a decision as to whom the notice will be served on. At this stage it is not intended in any way to make any alteration or change but I give an undertaking to the Senator that local authorities will be advised on that point. It is something on which one has to depend on the discretion of the authority as to who is the appropriate person on whom the order must be served. It is covered reasonably well.
Giving notice to local authorities will help in that regard because we must appreciate the Minister's problem. Will the Minister give an undertaking that on the next suitable occasion which I understand may not come for some time he will consider an amendment to cover that point? I am asking him to consider it — not to decide it — at some suitable time in the future.
I do not like to give any commitments for the future.
I anticipate the Minister will be there for a considerable length of time. He will be there long enough to introduce amendments.
I will bear that in mind.
I am not going to pursue the point I was going to make on this section. We have had a problem with regard to the Committee Stage and it was a question of not going against the House. However, a number of firemen who are worried about many sections of this Bill are in the House. Unfortunately, the Committee Stage is almost completed. I have raised some points but not very effectively because I have not been briefed adequately. I do not propose to make any more points but I am anxious to point out to the Minister the serious concern among the people who have to fight fires. In view of the way events turned out today in dealing with the Committee Stage would the Minister consider meeting representatives of the firemen prior to enactment?
I have no hesitation in saying that I too am available to meet anybody for discussion. I am representing the Minister for the Environment today. My predecessor met those representatives and had lengthy discussions with them on aspects of the Bill. I have made arrangements to meet next week some of those that Senator Harte has mentioned.
I should like to thank the Minister for that. We are dealing with a Bill that was amended in the other House on Committee and Report Stages. The people who have to carry out the fire-fighting and adhere to the regulations laid down in this Bill are in a serious situation in their own minds. This affects their work and we must give serious consideration to their views.
I understand from my predecessor that the points they are concerned about do not have to be included in the Bill. There were lengthy discussions with my predecessor but if those representatives have any point of view to offer I will certainly be pleased to hear them. I will use my office to give instructions to local authorities and that may meet their demands and wishes. I will be only to pleased to meet them.
I should like to thank the Minister. Will the Minister arrange a day before he leaves the House?
The Senator is pushing a very willing horse and he should not push me any more. I will be meeting those representatives next week.
I notice that churches are not mentioned in any part of the Bill. The biggest congregations of people throughout the year gather in churches. There is a potential danger in the majority of our churches. It would be virtually impossible for the people in most of our churches to get out if there was an emergency of any nature. Usually there are two doors at the back and a side door off the altar. People would not have a hope of getting out of some of the major churches in Dublin.
This is not directly connected with the section. Churches are not mentioned as such but other places where the public congregate are not mentioned either. I can assure the Senator that churches are covered in this Bill. They may not be specifically mentioned. It would be very difficult to cover all buildings.
Before leaving the Chamber I should like to take this opportunity to thank the Seanad for the speedy passage of the Bill. Senator Harte was concerned at the way in which the Committee Stage and the Final Stages were dealt with, but I must assure the Senator that it is very important that this legislation will be enacted as quickly as possible. The need for the Bill was accepted by all parties and I am glad that there was general agreement on its provisions. The Bill will form the basis for the development of the fire services in the years ahead and I thank all the Senators for their contributions to it. I want to thank you, Sir, for your co-operation during the discussion.