We are dealing with nine questions which are very serious.

We have had about 15 supplementary questions.

We could have had them on one question if we had taken them separately.

You should not.

The Minister indicated in his reply that he was satisfied that the Fire Services Act at the moment allows for the prosecution of persons responsible for not ensuring the maintenance of unobstructed exits and so forth. The Stardust Tribunal in paragraph 9.170 indicated quite clearly that they were not satisfied that the Fire Services Act provided for that. They specifically requested an amendment to that Act requiring that management be made liable for situations where exits were obstructed or not maintained in an unlocked condition. Could the Minister indicate why he is claiming that the Act does allow for this, while the Stardust Tribunal specifically state that it does not?

I cannot give reasons for the tribunal's statements. All I can say is that under section 18 (2) of the Act there are——

Who is liable under section 18?

Those in charge of the place of public assembly.

The bouncers? Not the management?

The owners.

Again, that is a matter for the courts. Within the Fire Services Act there are provisions under section 18 (2), where doors are blocked or locked, to impose imprisonment of two years and fines——

Obviously, that does not cover management.

This is a deplorable situation. The Stardust Tribunal which sat at great cost——

We are not discussing the application of sections of an Act of Parliament.

We want the management of places like the Stardust to be made liable if their places are not kept in a safe condition. The Minister is waffling on about section 18 of the Fire Services Act.

We are now debating, not answering questions.

The Chair should not be coming to the rescue of the Minister.

The Chair is responsible.

They should be compelled to keep their exits free and unlocked. Would the Minister indicate whether he does or does not intend to amend the Fire Services Act, as recommended by the Stardust Tribunal?

I was not waffling. I indicated that under section 18 (2) facilities are provided. I am always prepared to look at the matter.

The Minister should have looked at it by now.

I am satisfied that there are provisions under that section.

The Government have been six months looking into the Building Control Bill.

I am not going to allow a three way or even a two way argument.