Written question asked by Richard Shepherd (Conservative) on Tuesday, 29 October 2002, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Wednesday, 6 November 2002. It was answered by Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (Liberal Democrat) on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 on behalf of the House of Commons Commission.

House of Commons Commission

Question: To ask the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if, in the absence of a fire certificate for Portcullis House, the certificate of employers' liability insurance issued to honourable Members remain valid; and if the (a) fire safety doors, (b) alarm systems and (c) evacuation procedure meet British safety standards.

Answer: Mr. Shepherd: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire representing the House of Commons Commission, if, in the absence of a fire certificate for Portcullis House, the certificate of employers' liability insurance issued to hon. Members remain valid; and if the (a) fire safety doors, (b) alarm systems and (c) evacuation procedure meet British safety standards. [78596] Mr. Kirkwood: Despite the delay in granting a fire certificate for Portcullis House, the employers' liability insurance arranged on behalf of Members remains valid. The fire strategy for Portcullis House, which encompasses safety doors, alarm systems and evacuation procedures, conforms to British safety standards and the terms of relevant legislation. I will arrange for the hon. Gentleman to be supplied with further details if he wishes.

Secondary information

Type: Written question
Reference: 78596; 392 c302-3W;392 c322W
Session: 2001-02
Subjects: Alarms Fire prevention Insurance Employers' liability Members Safety Portcullis House
Link: View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk