Clause 44 - Powers of entry
Fire and Rescue Services Bill
3:00 pm
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Clause 44 deals with powers of entry other than in cases of emergency. Subsection (1) sets out the scope of those powers—the obtaining of necessary information for the discharge of the functions of a fire and rescue authority or the work of investigating a fire. Subsection (3) then sets out a limitation on those powers of entry in respect of dwellings. It is in that area that the amendments bite.
Amendment No. 132 seeks to do two things. First, it would remove the reference to admission ''as of right'', which seems to be a very broad and sweeping claim. ''As of right'' suggests something superior to any mere body of legislation, yet it seems that any powers exercised would not be ''as of right'' but by virtue of powers granted by subsection (1), which is somewhat more prosaic. Therefore, the amendment would replace the sweeping expression and replace it with:
''by virtue of . . . subsection (1)''.
That is much more modest and less threatening, and consistent with the normal form of drafting that we are used to.
Secondly, the amendment would remove the reference to ''a private dwelling'', substituting simply ''a dwelling''. That is a perfectly well used term; it is used throughout legislation—particularly planning legislation, which is within the remit of the same Department, so Ministers should be able to check that fairly quickly—and, indeed, elsewhere in this Bill. Subsections (3) and (4) refer to a ''private dwelling'' and subsections (7) and (8) to a ''dwelling''. That appears to be inconsistent.
By my logic, if there is such a thing as a private dwelling, there must be something that can be juxtaposed with it, such as a public dwelling—but that does not make any sense. I asked myself whether the issue was about ownership of dwellings, but I am certain that that cannot be the intention. A dwelling is a dwelling; it is a place where somebody lives, and who owns it is immaterial. The concept of a public dwelling is rather mysterious to me. Perhaps a hotel is a public dwelling; perhaps the Minister will clarify that in due course. On first reading, the construction seems odd, and references are inconsistent throughout the clause—private dwellings in some places and just dwellings in others.
For the sake of consistency, amendments Nos. 133, 134 and 135 raise the same issue in relation to subsection (4), although the point is made by amendment No. 132. Amendment No. 136 is also an attempt at consistency. Subsections (3) and (4) refer to premises occupied as a dwelling, but subsection (7) uses only the word ''dwelling''. The amendment would create symmetry of language throughout the clause. It is the occupation, not any other characteristic, that seems to be the determining factor that makes it subject to the limitation.
Amendment No. 137 would restrict the right of entry by warrant to a dwelling in a non-emergency situation to during a reasonable time. It is sensible to have the power to get a warrant to obtain entry to a dwelling by force if necessary, but there is no obvious reason why such entry should not be limited so that it may occur only at a reasonable time. We do not want to create a regime under which entry can be effected by force under the power of a warrant in the middle of the night, unless there are compelling reasons and in emergencies. Why would it not be appropriate to add such a restriction?